,transcriber's note3    ,text enclosed  
by underscores is in italics 7italics74 
,small capital text has been replaced   
with all capitals4    ,variations in    
spelling1 punctuation and hyphenation   
have been retained  except in obvious   
cases of typographical error4    ,in    
this book the transcriber has made the  
changes listed in the  corrections list4
             99       99       99       
99       99        ,,the ,,wave ,,of    
,,scepticism    ,,and    ,,the ,,rock   
,,of ,,truth4            ,,the ,,wave   
,,of ,,scepticism      ,,the ,,rock ,,of
 ,,truth3      ,a ,,reply ,,to          
,,supernatural ,,religion3 ,,an         
,,inquiry ,,into ,,the    ,,reality ,,of
 ,,divine ,,revelation4      ,,matthew  
,,henry ,,habershon4      ,animus ad    
amplitudinem mysteriorum pro modulo suo 
dilatetur1 non    mysteria ad angustias 
animi constringantur4--,,lord ,,bacon4  
,london3    ,,hodder ,,and ,,stoughton1 
#bg  #ca1 ,,paternoster ,,row4          
,,mdccclxxv4          ,,corrections4    

,title-page4 ,for anima1 read animi4    
,page iv4 ,for ,wann ,warden1 read ,wann
 ,wurden4             xii4 ,for one     
allowed1 read one version allowed4      
#bh line #c4 ,for and that ,paul1 read  
and that as for ,paul4               #eb
 line #c4 ,for first century1 read      
second century4               #gg ,for  
,he suffered martyrdom on1 read ,he     
suffered martyrdom1                 it  
is said1 on4               #gg ,for in  
the amphitheatre at ,antioch1 read in   
the                 amphitheatre1 not at
 ,rome1 but at ,antioch4                
#gh line #d4 ,for letters1 read         
versions4              #aji line #h from
 bottom4 ,for whoever1 read whomsoever4 
#abc line #g4 ,for dead1 read read4     
#agg line #g4 ,for at the name of       
,jesus1 read in the name of             
,jesus4          ,every wave which beats
 against the rock of eternal truth seems
 to  rise out of the trough caused by   
some receding wave1 and raises its      
threatening crest as if it would wash   

away the rock4    ,it is of the nature  
of truth1 that the more it is tested the
 more  sure it becomes under the trial4 
,these attacks of opponents are among   
the means whereby fresh evidences of the
 certitude of the ,gospels are  called  
out4    ,translator of ,tischendorf's   
,wann ,wurden ,unsere ,evangelien       
,verfasst4          ,,preface4          
,this volume is an amplified and        
expanded essay read before the members  
of the ,young ,men's ,society in        
connection with ,park ,church1          
,highbury1  on the evening of the #bnd  
of ,november1 #ahgd4 ,the original      
purpose of  the author was to indicate  
to the associates of that ,christian    
institution how the influence of ,german
 anti-,christian literature1  made plain
 to ,english readers by such books as   
the one under review1  might be         
withstood and neutralised1 and to supply
 an antidote to the  poisonous          
insinuations respecting ,christianity   
which many of the  periodicals of the   

day disseminate in noticing works of    
this  character4 ,those that are not    
professedly hostile to religion have a  
way of treating ,truth and ,error as if 
nothing had been proved1 and as  if the 
question were quite an open one whether 
,divine ,revelation is1  or is not1 a   
reality4 ,the present design of the     
author has a wider  range than he first 
intended4 ,he desires to induce1 not    
only young  men1 but those nearer his   
own age1 and placed1 much as himself1 in
 the  great centres of business1 who    
have not much time for research into    
such matters1 to bring their            
intelligence fairly alongside the bold  
pretensions of the cavillers and        
quibblers who presume to know that      
there is no ,god1 or that ,he has not   
spoken4 ,he desires to remind those  who
 are doubting that there is a knowledge 
that creates doubts which  nothing but a
 larger knowledge can satisfy1 and that 
he who stops in  the difficulty will be 
perplexed and uncomfortable for life4   

,having  investigated for himself1 the  
author indicates the result1 and would  
like1 if he can1 to facilitate the      
inquiry which it is1  unquestionably1   
the duty and interest of every one to   
make4 ,if to rest  on a foregone        
conclusion on a matter of such momentous
 importance is  not altogether          
justifiable on the ,christian side of   
the question1 how  much less so on the  
other6 ,for it should be remembered     
that1 on the  one side1 looking at the  
question from a prim facie point of     
view1  we have a faith which has the    
endorsement of the highest civilisation1
  the best morality1 the truest culture1
 the noblest aspirations1 and  the      
greatest happiness which humanity has   
ever experienced2 in  contrast with a   
negation which has nothing to offer as a
 substitute1  taking away the light that
 illumines the path of life1 and leaving
 it  in utter darkness4    ,as to the   
book under review1 the anonymous author 
seems to regard the  evidences of       

,supernatural ,religion as a region of  
swamp or sand1 in  which solid rock is  
nowhere to be found upon which faith may
 obtain a  firm footing4 ,he takes us in
 his survey here and there1 and says    
that  what seems to be solid stone is   
only slightly congealed sand1 which1  at
 the touch of his criticism1 dissolves  
and falls away4 ,we fix our  attention  
on one of these masses1 and the result  
is1 that it is not  what he alleges1    
but1 verily1 granite4 ,if the reader who
 is not  prejudiced against             
,christianity will attentively peruse   
this volume to  the end1 he will        
probably incline to this opinion4 ,if   
any whose views  in regard to           
,christianity are hostile should be at  
the trouble to read  it1 it is the hope 
of the author that the result will be to
 stimulate  inquiry and research1 for   
that which is true in religion cannot be
  shaken1 and that which is false1 no   
one can desire to preserve4 ,in so  far 
as the writer of ,supernatural ,religion

 and others have1 by their  reference to
 early ,patristic literature1 shown how 
certain it is that  ,jesus lived and    
taught1 they have done service to the   
cause of  ,christianity2 for the        
writings1 the traditions1 and the       
history of  the ,church are too closely 
identified with the ,sermon on the      
,mount to  admit of the probability that
 ,he who could thus teach was less than 
,he believed ,himself to be4 ,on such a 
foundation the superstructure  is so    
appropriate1 that the possibility which 
,john ,stuart ,mill  conceived is near  
to probability1 and probability to a    
full  assurance of faith4      #hb1     
,,st4 ,,mark',s ,,square1    ,,west     
,,hackney1 ,,london4    #aath ,december1
 #ahgd4          ,,contents4            
,,page      ,,introduction              
#a        ,,chapter ,i4      ,,miracles4
      ,miracles the vital point in the  
investigation--,their modification to   
suit scientific theologians--,antecedent
 credibility--,miracles not             

super-,satanic--,profane                
oaths--,counterfeits--,christianity     
misrepresented--,j4 ,s4 ,mill--,appeal  
to reason--,the ,fourth ,gospel         
ignored--,intellectual condition of the 
age when miracles    occurred--,royal   
,college of ,physicians--,french        
,academy--,priests    ordained to       
forgive sins--,paul the only educated   
man of his    generation--,perfection   
and invariability of the order of       
,nature in    contrast with the         
wickedness of mankind--,abstract        
question as to the    credibility of    
miracles--,matthew ,arnold and ,j4 ,s4  
,mill reject ,hume's                    
argument--,recent ,german criticisms in 
favour of ,christianity--,dr4           
,christlieb's ,modern ,doubt and        
,christian ,belief--,baur and the       
,tbingen ,school                        
#aa      ,,chapter ,,ii4    ,,the       
,,synoptic ,,gospels4      ,the argument
 from the silence of early              
writers--,limits of the                 

inquiry--,quotations from unknown       
sources and tradition--,the summary of  
what the author of ,supernatural        
,religion alleges his investigation     
produces--,his plausibility1 special    
pleading1 and boldness of               
assertion--,his line across             
history--,verbal testimony in the first 
two    generations--,inscription over   
the cross--,clement of ,rome--,verbatim 
quotations--,tischendorf and early      
translations of the ,new ,testament     
into ,latin and ,syriac--,pretensions on
 behalf of the ,synoptics--,rnan's      
views of the ,gospels--,uniform plenary 
and verbal inspiration--    ,perversion 
of ,scripture--,epistle of              
,barnabas--,the ninth chapter of        
,matthew dissected and the miraculous   
eliminated--,tischendorf's    opinion   
ridiculed--,quoting unfairly--,the      
,pauline and ,petrine                   
contention--,the ,second ,epistle of    
,peter--,the ,pastor of ,hermas         
#da      ,,chapter ,,iii4    ,,the      

,,synoptic ,,gospels--continued4        
,the ,epistles of ,ignatius--,one       
,version allowed to be genuine--,the    
,epistle    of ,polycarp to the         
,philippians3 its acceptance as genuine 
by    ,irenus--,hegesippus--,fragments  
only preserved of his writings--,the    
impossibility of knowing what was in the
 portions notextant--    ,papias--,his  
evidence respecting ,mark's             
,gospel--,his assertion    that ,matthew
 wrote in ,hebrew1 and ,tischendorf's   
opinion that he wrote    in             
,greek--,justin ,martyr--,his reference 
to the ,memoirs called    ,gospels--,the
 ,clementine ,homilies--,important      
quotation from    ,matthew--,paul's     
,epistle to the ,church at              
,laodicea--,construction of             
,matthew's ,gospel--,the ,epistle to    
,diognetus                          #ge 
,,chapter ,,iv4    ,,the ,,synoptic     
,,gospels--continued4                   
,basilides--,the ,gospel to the         
,hebrews--,special pleading in regard to

    ,hippolytus and the pronouns ,,he   
and ,,they--,coincidence resorted       
to--,events ,,happen to occur as        
predicted--,valentinus--,marcion1 a     
critic    of the modern sceptical       
sort--,j4 ,s4 ,mill--,tatian3 his       
harmony of the    four                  
,gospels--,dionysius of ,corinth--,the  
word ,scripture applied to the    ,new  
,testament writings--,the ,gospel of    
,peter--,serapion's explanation    why  
it was read at ,rhossus--,melito of     
,sardis--,the word old applied    to the
 ,old ,testament implying the existence 
of a ,new ,testament--    ,claudius     
,apollinaris and his reference to the   
four ,gospels--                         
,athenagoras--,opposite opinions as to  
his quotation from ,matthew--,the       
,epistle of ,vienne and                 
,lyons--,ptolemus and                   
,heracleon--,celsus--,the    ,canon of  
,muratori                               
#ii      ,,chapter ,v4    ,,the ,,fourth
 ,,gospel4      ,the evidence of        

,irenus--,epistle of ,polycarp to the   
,philippians    genuine--,the           
,refutation of all ,heresies by         
,hippolytus--,justin    ,martyr--,the   
internal evidence--,philo's             
philosophy--,the doctrine of the        
triune nature of ,jehovah--,the         
,divinity of ,christ--,the ,holy        
,spirit--,the    nameless1 unknown      
author--,rnan's views in favour of the  
,johannine    authorship--,linguistic   
difficulties--,william ,penn--,the      
raising of    ,lazarus from the         
dead--,john's memory--,the ,duke of     
,wellington--,mode of                   
authorship--,men separated from their   
writings1 and books without             
authors--,the second century            
non-classical compared with the         
first--,facts make history1 not history 
facts--,the living voice rather    than 
books the instrument for proclaiming the
 ,gospel in the first    century--,the  
folly of ignoring ,divine ,revelation   
#ace      ,,chapter ,,vi4               

,,contemporary ,,evidence4      ,the    
,apostle ,john the author of the        
,apocalypse--,importance of the         
admission--,the precise date of its     
composition--,its allegorical           
character--,pilgrim's ,progress and     
,paradise ,lost and ,regained--,the     
doctrines indicated in the              
,apocalypse--,rome the mystical         
,babylon--    ,nero ,csar--,the number  
of the beast--,the ,lord's              
day--,prominence    of the allusion to  
the ,lamb slain to take away            
sin--,paul's epistles    identical in   
doctrine with the                       
,apocalypse--,professor                 
,owen--,quotation    from ,the ,merchant
 of ,venice                             
#afc      ,,chapter ,,vii4              
,,conclusion4      ,an eloquent sentence
 analysed--,henry ,rogers--,john ,stuart
 ,mill--    ,priestley--,paul's         
admonition to ,timothy--,the death of   
apostles    not recorded in writings    
alleged to have been written long after 

their    decease--,verdict pronounced   
before the case is complete--,authority 
of    ,church ,councils--,the religion  
of the ,bible a spiritual matter1       
requiring spiritual                     
discernment--,summary--,peroration      
#ahc          ,,introduction4           
,there are more things in heaven and    
earth1 ,horatio1 than are dreamt  of in 
your philosophy4      ,shakespeare4     
,when we consider further that a gift1  
extremely precious1 came to  us1 which1 
though facilitated1 was not             
necessitated1 by what had gone  before1 
but was due1 as far as appearances go1  
to the peculiar mental  and moral       
endowments of one man1 and that man     
openly proclaimed that  it did not come 
from himself1 but from ,god through him1
 then we are  entitled to say there is  
nothing so inherently or absolutely     
incredible in this supposition as to    
preclude any one from hoping that  it   
may perhaps be true4      ,john ,stuart 
,mill4          ,,introduction4         

,nothing in these days is taken for     
granted4 ,in science1 philosophy1       
politics1 and religion1 the foundations 
of belief are fearlessly  examined1 and 
the facilities for the process are      
unprecedented4  ,criticism has new and  
improved instruments1 and they are      
extensively  used--often misused4 ,it   
concerns us especially to know how far  
our  religious institutions are being   
affected4    ,have devout men1 during   
the three thousand years which history  
chronicles1 been under a delusion in    
believing that there is a spirit  in    
man1 and the ,almighty giveth him       
understanding8    ,is popular           
,christianity wide of the truth1 and a  
disfigurement of the  truth1 as an      
eminent writer the other day asserted8  
,such questions  float in our literature
 and find their way into our homes and  
our  sanctuaries4    ,although no       
importance is to be attached to the     
reckless assertion  that the outworks of
 ,evangelical ,religion are in danger1  

and that the  very citadel itself is not
 impregnable1 it is undoubtedly true    
that  its modern adversaries--reputable 
and otherwise--are bold1 active1 and    
skilful1 and there is need that its     
defenders should be alert and  vigilant4
 ,it will not do to rely altogether on  
the defensive lines and  tactics of our 
predecessors4 ,each generation has the  
stronghold  entrusted to its care1 and  
new appliances are1 from time to time1  
required to resist novel as well as     
resuscitated modes of assault4          
,however certain be the ultimate triumph
 of ,his cause whose right it is  to    
reign1 the rate of its progress depends 
upon the faithfulness and  heroism of   
,his servants at their various posts of 
labour and conflict4    ,to change the  
figure4 ,the mirror which reflects      
,divine truth has to be  preserved and  
kept bright by human instrumentality4   
,superstition1 in  the murky atmosphere 
of sacerdotalism1 clouds it2 by false   
philosophy  it is liable to be dimmed2  

while crude science or unsound          
criticism1  removing the silver lining  
to make the glass more transparent1     
makes  it useless4 ,he does well who is 
able to act as its conservator1 and  in 
some measure cleanse the surface1 that  
obscurity may be removed and  eternal   
truth discerned4    ,i am aware that1 as
 a rule1 it is not desirable that       
hostile  literature should be helped    
into notoriety1 and that believers      
should  be troubled with exploded       
fallacies and disturbed by arguments    
against  the truth as it is in ,jesus a 
hundred times answered4    ,as ,robert  
,hall justly remarks3--,it is degrading 
to the dignity of a  revelation1        
established through a succession of ages
 by indubitable  proofs1 to be adverting
 every moment to the hypothesis of its  
being an  imposture1 and to be inviting 
every ignorant sophist to wrangle about 
the title1 when we should be cultivating
 the possession4    ,but there are      
exceptions to every rule1 and as ,i am  

not addressing a  promiscuous audience1 
but the members of a society whose rule 
is to  discuss all subjects without     
limitation1 ,i venture to think ,i am   
justified in bringing under your notice 
a recent heterodox book which  is so    
well written as to be likely to mislead 
if it be not  neutralized4 ,and the more
 so1 if ,i can make the author not only 
answer  himself1 but other writers whose
 anti-,christian arguments are not put  
forth anonymously1 but with the         
authority of well-known names and much  
reputation in the world of letters and  
science4    ,let me further premise that
 the ,christian is occupying an         
exceptional  position when he descends  
to the neutral level of the sceptic to  
discuss the internal evidences of       
,evangelical truth4 ,his usual          
privileged abode is more favourable for 
the survey than the lower  ground1 for  
the light is brighter and the air       
clearer on the mountain  heights where  
he is wont to contemplate religious     

matters1 than on the  plain where faith 
has no temple1 and reason1 ignoring     
,divine  influence1 operates with the   
carnal instruments of a negative creed4 
,to appeal to the spiritual discernment 
of a disbeliever in ,divine             
illumination would be like expecting a  
man who is not of the mystical  craft of
 the ,masonic brotherhood to use the    
signs 7if such there be7  of a          
,freemason4 ,yet the argument in defence
 of the reality of ,divine  revelation  
is not complete without a reference to  
that ,spirit of  ,truth which ,jesus    
,christ promised to send to testify of  
him1 and to  bring all things to the    
remembrance of those disciples who were 
to  bear witness1 because they had been 
with him from the beginning4#a      #a  
,john xv4 #bf1 #bg4    ,a good cause may
 be injured by injudicious and feeble   
advocacy1 but ,i  trust ,i am not       
presumptuously meddling with a theme    
which only an  erudite scholar and      
theologian should deal with4 ,i beg you 

to bear in  mind1 however1 that if ,i or
 others fail in the contest for truth1  
there still will remain the indubitable 
proofs of ,divine revelation in  all    
their variety and superabundance4       
,although the ability1 scholarship1 and 
research displayed in this              
anti-,christian work are considerable1  
,i doubt if it has really much in  it   
that is original4 ,the author has only  
cleverly reproduced and  rearranged the 
anti-,christian arguments1 chiefly      
,german1#b which are  to be found in the
 library of the ,british ,museum4       
#b ,the works of ,strauss1 ,baur1       
,schenkel1 and ,rnan are the great      
authorities for the negative criticism  
of the present day4--,dr4               
,christlieb4    ,the ,examiner says1 in 
regard to three-fourths of the work1 ,it
 is  neither more nor less than a digest
 of recent ,german speculation on  the  
date and authorship of the ,gospels2    
devoid of originality1 and  infected    
with the verbosity and repetition of the

 authorities on which  it is based4     
,in the other notices of the work which 
have appeared so far1 it has1 ,i  think1
 been somewhat over-estimated4    ,the  
,fortnightly ,review writes of it3 ,it  
is not too much to say of  the two      
volumes before us that they are by far  
the most decisive1  trenchant1 and      
far-reaching of the direct contributions
 to theological  controversy that have  
been made in this generation4    ,the   
,athenum says3 ,the book proceeds from a
 man of ability1 a  scholar1 and        
reasoner1 who writes like an earnest    
seeker after truth1  and knows well all 
the ,german and ,dutch books relating to
 the  criticism of the ,new ,testament1 
as well as the ,english ones4    ,the   
,westminster ,review asserts that no    
more formidable assailant of  orthodoxy 
could well be imagined4    ,the         
,spectator designates it a masterly but 
prejudiced examination  of the evidences
 for the antiquity of the ,christian    
,scriptures4    ,the ,literary ,world   

says3 ,this is1 beyond all question1 an 
important  book4 ,the one grand         
pervading fault we find with it is its  
partisanship4 ,the writer plays the part
 of special pleader against  what he    
calls ,ecclesiastical ,christianity1 and
 fails to represent  what could be said 
on the other side4 ,it is a partisan    
production1 a  piece of clever1         
ingenious1 plausible1 special pleading4 
,the author  has got up his case with   
marvellous exclusiveness4 ,he makes it  
an  absolute rule1 so far as we         
perceive1 to regard his opponents as    
having no case at all4    ,the quarterly
 reviews1 ,edinburgh1 ,quarterly1 and   
,british  ,quarterly1 have not yet      
pronounced an opinion on its merits4    
,my purpose is to show that the author  
of this anonymous work has not  been    
successful in accomplishing the two     
things he has attempted1  viz41 to prove
 the incredibility of miracles by--     
,first1 a recast of the often-exploded  
syllogistic fallacies of ,hume2  and1   

secondly1 by an elimination of the      
miraculous from the ,gospels2  but that 
he has been successful1 without         
intending it1 in showing that           
,supernatural ,religion rests upon      
substantial contemporary evidence4      
,the work consists of three parts4 ,the 
first is upon miracles1 treating  the   
subject as an abstract question4 ,the   
second1 upon the ,synoptic  ,gospels    
7,matthew1 ,mark1 and ,luke74 ,the      
third1 upon the ,fourth ,gospel4  ,and  
there is a summary of the supposed      
results of the reasoning and  the       
investigation4 ,the inference arrived at
 is premature1 for as the  ,new         
,testament does not consist only of the 
four ,gospels1 but contains  other      
writings of equal importance1 the       
argument is incomplete1 and  the latter 
will have to be dealt with before our   
author can reasonably  expect any reader
 to entertain his anti-miraculous       
hypothesis4 ,another  volume is         
promised1 but we may safely venture to  

anticipate that it  will prove no more  
formidable than the other great waves of
 scepticism  which have surged against1 
but have not undermined1 the rock upon  
which our faith is built4               
,,chapter ,i4    ,,miracles4            
,seriously to raise this question1      
whether ,god can perform miracles1      
would be impious if it were not absurd4 
,rousseau4          ,,chapter ,i4       
,in the first part of the work the      
following topics are discussed by  the  
author3--,miracles in relation to       
,christianity and the order of          
nature--,reason in relation to the order
 of nature--,the age of  miracles--,the 
permanent stream of miraculous          
pretension--,miracles in  relation to   
ignorance and superstition4    ,in      
stating the main purpose of his inquiry1
 he says 7p4 #h73--;,it is  obvious that
 the reality of miracles is the vital   
point in the  investigation which we    
have undertaken4 ,if the reality of     
miracles  cannot be established1        

,christianity loses the only evidence by
 which  its truth can be sufficiently   
attested4    ,he might have dispensed   
with his arguments against the views of 
those  who endeavour to bring the       
miracles of the ,bible within the scope 
of  the laws of nature1 and to modify   
them by explanatory interpretations  so 
as to satisfy the demands of scientific 
and philosophical  theologians4         
,christianity admits of no such         
treatment4 ,in its essence it is        
superhuman1 abnormal1 phenomenal1       
supernatural1 though not unnatural4  ,a 
series of facts divinely attested1 a    
proclamation of mercy divinely          
commissioned1 a system of means divinely
 blessed1 is the true  definition of the
 gospel4    ,discussing the antecedent  
credibility of miracles1 our author     
makes  much of the references in the    
,bible to the working of miracles by    
,satanic as well as ,divine agency4 ,if1
 says he1 miracles are  superhuman they 
are not super-,satanic4 ,the answer to  

this obviously  is1 that what was merely
 a superstitious notion of the ,jews1   
and that  which is taught by ,divine    
authority1 are two very different       
things4  ,where in the ,bible do we find
 that ,god reveals ,his will by miracles
  which are not the manifestations of   
,his own power8 ,christ points to  the  
superhuman works that ,he was doing in  
,his ,father's name as  evidence of ,his
 mission2 and when the ,jews suggested  
that ,he cast out  devils by ,beelzebub1
 ,he said1 ,if ,satan cast out ,satan he
 is divided  against himself3 how shall 
his kingdom stand8#c ,the man born      
blind1  to whom sight was given1 said1  
,if this man were not of ,god he could  
do nothing2#d and he said it was a      
marvellous thing that the ,jews  did not
 know he was from ,god who had wrought  
the miracle4      #c ,matt4 xii4 #bf4   
#d ,john ix4 #cc4    ,nicodemus1 a ruler
 of the ,jews1 said to ,jesus1 ,rabbi1  
we know that  thou art a teacher come   
from ,god3 for no man can do these      

miracles  that thou doest except ,god be
 with him4#e ,some of the ,pharisees    
said1 ,this man is not of ,god1 because 
he keepeth not the sabbath day4  ,others
 said1 ,how can a man that is a sinner  
do such miracles8#f  ,some of the ,jews 
said1 ,can a devil open the eyes of the 
blind8#g      #e ,ibid4 iii4 #b4      #f
 ,ibid4 ix4 #af4      #g ,ibid4 x4 #ba4 
,our author's statement is certainly not
 supported by the passage  quoted from  
,deuteronomy xiii4 #c1 of which he says1
 ,the false miracle  is here attributed 
to ,god ,himself4 ,the words of that    
passage are3 ,if  there arise among you 
a prophet1 or a dreamer of dreams1 and  
giveth  thee a sign or a wonder1 and the
 sign or the wonder come to pass1       
whereof he spake unto thee1 saying1 ,let
 us go after other gods1 which  thou    
hast not known1 and let us serve them3  
thou shalt not hearken  unto the words  
of that prophet1 or that dreamer of     
dreams3 for the  ,lord your ,god proveth
 you1 to know whether ye love the ,lord 

your ,god  with all your heart and with 
all your soul4 ,ye shall walk after the 
,lord your ,god1 and fear him1 and keep 
his commandments1 and obey his  voice1  
and ye shall serve him1 and cleave unto 
him4 ,and that prophet1  or that dreamer
 of dreams1 shall be put to death2      
because he hath  spoken to turn you away
 from the ,lord your ,god1 which brought
 you out  of the land of ,egypt1 and    
redeemed you out of the house of        
bondage1 to  thrust thee out of the way 
which the ,lord thy ,god commanded thee 
to  walk in4 ,so shalt thou put the evil
 away from the midst of thee4 ,i        
transcribe the whole passage1 that its  
plain meaning may be seen1 and  you may 
understand how much reliance is to be   
placed on our author  when he appears as
 a ,bible commentator4 ,of course the   
prophet referred  to is one pretending  
to the ,divine inspiration and authority
 of the  prophetic office1 and the      
dreamer of dreams one who pretends that 
some deity has spoken to him in a dream4

    ,if our author be a ,biblical       
scholar1 his scholarship is greatly at  
fault in the passage he refers to in    
,ezekiel xiv4 #i3 ,and if the  prophet  
be deceived when he hath spoken a thing1
 ,i the ,lord have  deceived that       
prophet1 and ,i will stretch out my hand
 upon him1 and  will destroy him from   
the midst of my people ,israel4         
,according to the  ,hebrew language1    
,god is often said to do a thing which  
,he only  suffers or permits4 ,how can  
,god be understood to harden ,pharaoh's 
heart in any other sense8 ,the character
 of ,god is too plainly  described in   
the ,bible to leave any uncertainty on  
this point4    ,the passages quoted from
 the ,new ,testament only apparently    
support  his statement4 ,he quotes ,dr4 
,mansel in reference to them1 and no    
doubt  his words truly apply where he   
says1 ,the supposed miracles are not    
true miracles at all1 i4e41 are not the 
effects of ,divine power1 but  of human 
deception or some other agency4 ,the    

existence and powers of  angels1 good   
and bad1 we know little about1 because  
little is  revealed2 but it is not the  
,bible but superstition which teaches   
that  the fallen spirits have more power
 than the faithful ones in the  affairs 
of this world1 that ,satan is more      
potent than ,gabriel4 ,if we  knew more 
about the origin of evil1 this matter   
would probably be less  mysterious to   
our finite intelligence4    ,our author 
describes 7vol4 i4 page #dg7 what he    
supposes orthodox  ,christianity        
includes2 and among other strange       
assertions he says that  man was tempted
 into sin by ,satan1 an all-powerful and
 persistent  enemy of ,god1 thus making 
the fallen angel an ,almighty being4    
,this matter has an important bearing on
 the proper exhibition of  religious    
truth1 for the more superstition is     
intermingled with it1  the more will    
unbelief be likely to be prevalent4 ,on 
the one hand1  infidelity engenders     
superstition1 and on the other1         

superstition  creates aversion to       
religion4 ,i cannot but think that there
 is  something wrong in the way in which
 ,christian men1 in the pulpit and      
elsewhere1 often allude to the spirit of
 evil4 ,he is represented in  ,scripture
 as the god of this world1 but surely   
that is not to be  understood literally4
    ,jesus told the ,jews that the devil
 was their father1 as their deeds  being
 evil indicated1 who was a murderer from
 the beginning1 and  abode not in the   
truth1 because there is no truth in him4
 ,when he  speaketh a lie1 he speaketh  
of his own3 for he is a liar1 and the   
father of it4#h ,as1 therefore1 the     
devil is the father of lies1 so  are we 
to understand he is the ,god of this    
world4 ,not in any other  sense4 ,he is 
potent1 but not omnipotent2 knowing1 but
 not omniscient2  has his               
representatives distributed among the   
scenes of sin and death  in our world1  
and himself goeth to and fro in the     
earth1#i but he  is not omnipresent4 ,it

 is ,oriental demonology which teaches  
that two  equal principles--good and    
evil--are alike dominant1 not the truth 
as  it is in ,jesus2 ,persian           
superstition1 ,gnostical heresy1 not    
,divine  revelation4      #h ,john viii4
 #dd4      #i ,job i4 #g4    ,the       
frivolous use of words and matters      
connected with the spiritual  world and 
our eternal interests is greatly to be  
disapproved and  condemned2 but surely  
the mention of ,satan is not to be      
designated as  profane1 as if ,god's    
holy name were taken in vain4 ,to       
comment on what  are called profane     
oaths in such a way is not to enlighten 
the minds  of the vulgar1 but to mystify
 and conceal the truth of ,christianity4
  ,it is one thing to believe that there
 is in existence the spiritual  being   
whose evil doings our ,saviour's coming 
into our world  frustrates1 whose power 
is great1 whose emissaries are          
innumerable1  and whose baneful         
suggestions and influence the ,holy     

,spirit alone can  withstand1 and quite 
another thing to believe that ,satan    
could give  miraculous attestation to a 
lie1 as ,god did to the truth4 ,if there
 are  some passages of ,scripture that  
seem to favour this false view1 it      
behoves us to suspect1 having regard to 
the whole tenour of ,scripture          
affecting the doctrine1 that the correct
 interpretation has not been  arrived   
at4    ,the existence of ,satan1 and his
 influence1 personal1 and by the        
legions who fell with him1 are of course
 superhuman ideas1 and in the  category 
of the miraculous2 but there is a wide  
difference between the  most striking   
sign of his spiritual power and the     
,divine miracles  wrought to attest the 
truth4 ,it is ,god who alone doeth great
  wonders4#aj      #aj ,psa4 cxxxvi4    
#ad4    ,if this man were not of ,god he
 could do nothing4#aa ,if ,i do not  the
 works of my ,father1 believe me not4#ab
      #aa ,john ix4 #cc4      #ab ,ibid 
x4 #cg4    ,a miracle is a sign for our 

faith1 to be apprehended in its ,divine 
intention1 though it cannot be          
comprehended1 because it is ,god's      
especial work4 ,when the magicians in   
the ,court of ,pharaoh saw the  miracles
 which ,moses wrought1 they said1 ,this 
is the finger of  ,god1#ac which is1 and
 intended to be1 the inevitable         
inference4  ,they knew that all they    
could do was a sham1 a pretence4        
#ac ,exod4 viii4 #ai4    ,counterfeits  
are as prominent in the history of our  
race as any  feature that could be      
specified1 and an imaginary devil is    
conspicuous  in the category of the     
spurious4 ,if there had been no real    
one1 the  counterfeit could scarcely    
have been conceived4 ,he is the father  
of  lies1 and how numerous his progeny6 
,while all else is misrepresented1      
parodied1 travestied1 burlesqued1       
falsified1 belied1 it would be  strange 
if he had escaped4 ,from the ,eternal   
,himself down to the most  insignificant
 thing that is worth a forgery1 what a  

catalogue may in  an instant be         
specified6 ,the ,divine law with its    
ceremonial rites1 and  the ,church with 
its ordinances2 prophets and apostles2  
gospels and  epistles2 science and      
philosophy2 history and biography2 and1 
assuredly1 miracles2 in short1 all      
truth--stem1 branch1 twig1 and  leaf--is
 more or less1 and at one time or       
another1 got up  artificially1 and the  
spurious or adulterated article offered1
 in  competition with the genuine one1  
to human credulity4 ,this1 if it  makes 
absolute truth difficult to buy1 renders
 the injunction to sell  it not1 when   
bought1 true wisdom4 ,it seems to be1   
and of course is1  absurd to doubt the  
genuineness of the currency of a nation 
because  spurious coins are met with1   
but ,i believe that more scepticism is  
produced by the consideration of the    
many religious impostures in the  world 
than by any other influence4 ,the       
inference is childish in the  ignorant  
and unphilosophical in the scholar1 but 

it is often  unconsciously arrived at in
 many minds as a plain and easy solution
 of  the question which cannot be       
evaded--,is ,divine revelation a        
reality8    ,our author misrepresents   
,christianity1 and uses the             
misrepresentation  as an argument       
against it1 as1 alas6 is only too       
common4 ,john ,stuart  ,mill actually   
says in his essay on ,theism 7p4 #bdj7  
that ,christ is  never said to have     
declared any evidence of ,his mission   
7unless ,his  own interpretations of the
 prophecies be so considered7 except    
internal conviction4 ,if ,mr4 ,mill ever
 read the ,new ,testament through1  he  
would have found where it is written1   
,jesus answered and said unto  them1 ,go
 and show ,john again those things which
 ye do hear and see3  the blind receive 
their sight1 the lame walk1 the lepers  
are cleansed1  the deaf hear1 the dead  
are raised up1 and the poor have the    
gospel  preached to them4 ,and blessed  
is he1 whosoever is not offended in  me4

 ,and also the words1 ,but ,i have      
greater witness than that of  ,john3 for
 the works which the ,father hath given 
me to finish1 the same  works that ,i   
do1 bear witness of me1 that the ,father
 hath sent  me4#ad ,the ,jews came round
 about him and said1 ,how long dost thou
  make us to doubt8 ,if thou be the     
,messiah1 tell us plainly4 ,jesus       
answered1 ,i told you1 and ye believed  
not3 the works that ,i do in my         
,father's name1 they bear witness of    
me4#ae ,believe me for the very  works' 
sake4#af      #ad ,john v4 #cf4      #ae
 ,ibid x4 #be4      #af ,ibid xiv4 #aa4 
,how1 in the face of such an            
authoritative statement why miracles    
were  wrought by ,jesus1 can our author 
assume that they were not intended to   
be an appeal to reason1 and to be tested
 by the intelligence and  common sense  
they appealed to8 ,the miracles were    
wrought to convince  men that ,jesus was
 the ,messiah1 and were adapted to that 
end4 ,our  author's picture of ,divine  

revelation is very much a conception of 
his  own1 fashioned from isolated       
portions of ,scripture1 pseudo-,judaism1
  and ecclesiastical representations of 
,christianity4    ,he quotes ,archbishop
 ,trench1 who1 in defining the function 
of a  miracle1 says1--,a miracle does   
not prove the truth of a doctrine or    
the divine mission of him that brings it
 to pass2 and ,dr4 ,arnold1 who         
says1--,it has always seemed to me that 
its substance is a most  essential part 
of its evidence1 and that miracles      
wrought in favour of  what was foolish  
or wicked would only prove ,manicheism3 
which  passages of fallible commentators
 fail to express the distinction        
between real miracles and spurious ones4
 ,but ,i ask1 ,why does he appeal  to   
what ,dr4 ,trench and ,dr4 ,arnold1 or  
any other commentator says1 when  he has
 before him our ,saviour's own words8   
,in arguing against  miracles1 it is not
 competent for him to put his own       
construction upon  them in violation of 

the highest authority as to their       
purpose and  design4 ,i understand his  
conclusions to be against               
,christianity--not  against what he is  
pleased to put in its place4 ,it is in  
the ,fourth  ,gospel we find ,christ's  
words1 but that book is too important a 
part  of ,divine revelation for any     
apologist to remain in the field of     
discussion and continue the argument if 
his opponent1--whether he be  ,mr4 ,mill
 or our author1--insists on assuming    
that on the ,christian  side the        
question is an open one whether the     
,fourth ,gospel is to be  accepted4 ,the
 whole of the four ,gospels as we have  
them were read in  all the ,christian   
,churches on the three continents in the
 middle of  the second century1 as our  
author well knows4 ,he acknowledges that
  ,irenus1 who wrote about ,a4,d4 #ahj1 
compared the four ,gospels to the  four 
columns of the ,church over the whole   
world2 and that in  writings of his     
which we have1 and the genuineness of   

which no one  questions1 there are      
hundreds of references to the ,gospels1 
the fourth  included4 ,there is no      
question as to this being the fact at   
that date4  ,it is the earlier date that
 the argument bears upon4 ,the four     
,gospels  are held together by an       
inseparable bond in the archives of the 
,church1 and believers in them assert   
they will all four stand or fall        
together4 ,i can only suppose that it   
was because ,mr4 ,mill ignored the      
,fourth ,gospel that he ignored the     
verses ,i have quoted4    ,if an        
advocate has a weak case in hand1 to    
damage the character of the  witnesses  
is a well-known mode of proceeding2 so  
our author asks who  are the men who1 it
 is asserted1 saw these amazing         
performances8 ,what  were the           
intellectual conditions of the age when 
they occurred8 ,did  the ,jews at the   
time of ,jesus possess such calmness of 
judgment and  sobriety of imagination as
 to inspire us with any confidence in   

accounts of marvellous occurrences      
unwitnessed except by them1 and  limited
 to their time1 which contradict all    
knowledge and all  experience8 ,were    
their minds sufficiently enlightened and
 free from  superstition to warrant our 
attaching weight to their report of     
events  of such an astounding nature8   
7,vol4 i4 p4 #ih47    ,the reading of   
this sentence suggests a comparison     
between the age he  refers to and the   
century succeeding ,harvey's discovery  
of the  circulation of the blood1 during
 which our ,royal ,college of           
,physicians  repudiated the discovery1  
some of the most eminent of the faculty 
writing against it1 and creating a      
prejudice against ,harvey by which  his 
practice suffered considerably2 and the 
scientific period when the  ,french     
,academy for a long time rejected the   
use of quinine1  vaccination1           
lightning-conductors1 the steam-engine1 
c4    ,to weaken the apostolic          
testimony1 there is presented an        

elaborate  exhibition of the wide-spread
 belief among the ,jews in sorcery1     
dreams1 portents1 and numerous forms of 
superstition4 ,in what age have  not    
these been prevalent8 ,are we free from 
them in this8 ,if the ,divine           
communication had been postponed until  
now1 and civilisation could  have       
attained to its present stage without   
its influence1 would its  reception have
 been any different8 ,would the vested  
interests in  established usages and    
beliefs have raised no opposition8 ,if  
there are  in this country1 and in this 
day1 thousands who believe1 or pretend  
to  believe1 that the priests who are   
ordained to forgive sins can really  do 
so1 are we in a position to assume any  
great superiority over the  ,jews1      
,greeks1 and ,romans of eighteen        
centuries ago8 ,if the most  manifest   
and stupendous miracle were wrought to  
show men the folly of  drunkenness1     
lying1 and other sins1 would not the    
results be just the  same8 ,some would  

believe and testify1 and others say that
 the sign1  not being of the precise    
sort to suit them1 was not conclusive4  
,there  must be a coming down from the  
cross1 or something else1 to satisfy    
them4 ,if they believe not ,moses and   
the prophets1 neither would they        
believe though one rose from the dead4  
,the testimony of the first  disciples1 
it is said1 is not satisfactory1 because
 they were  uneducated1 unscientific1   
uncritical4 ,mr4 ,mill says ,paul was   
the only  exception in the first        
generation of ,christians4 ,i remark    
that  ,matthew1 in the position of a    
receiver of taxes for the ,roman        
government1 though not learned1 might be
 shrewd to detect imposture2  that      
,thomas was not too credulous2 and that 
as for ,paul1 if he could not  judge of 
the value of the testimony of the       
hundreds of men and women  who told him1
 or could have told him1 what they were 
eye-witnesses of1  what was his         
education worth1 and what about the     

miracle in his own  case8 ,why should it
 be doubted that the vision to which he 
refers in  his unquestioned letter to   
the ,galatians really occurred8 ,he     
therein  tells them 7with an            
asseveration that1 in the presence of   
,god1 he was  not lying7#ag that he was 
taught the gospel he preached by the    
revelation of ,jesus ,christ4 ,whatever 
may be said about the authority  of the 
,acts of the ,apostles1 which relates   
the particulars of ,paul's  miraculous  
conversion so minutely1 we have the     
evidence of it in  ,paul's own letter4  
,of course he would compare what was    
revealed to him  with what the          
eye-witnesses could tell him2 and if he 
could mistake a  sunstroke1 a trance1 or
 a state of ecstatic dreaming for a     
,divine  revelation1 his character1     
judged of by his own writings1 is verily
  incomprehensible4 ,there is no such   
other enigma in all history4 ,in his    
equally unquestioned letter to the      
,corinthians he tells them that he      

received from the ,lord the particulars 
of the institution of the  ,lord's      
,supper4 ,of this memorable event ,paul 
had ample opportunities of  comparing   
what was revealed to him with what the  
disciples who were  present could tell  
him2 and he was in such intercourse with
 them1 that  the circumstances were     
highly favourable for an educated man1  
such as  he was1 arriving at the exact  
and absolute truth of the matter4       
#ag #a ,gal4 i4 #bj4    ,our author's   
view of the question is narrowed by his 
refusing to  acknowledge that mankind is
 morally depraved by sin4    ,how a man1
 with the wickedness of such a city as  
,london daily forced  on his notice1 and
 a knowledge of the history of the race 
in his  memory1 could have penned such a
 sentence as the following1 it is       
difficult to conceive4 ,the whole theory
 of this abortive design of  creation1  
with such important efforts to amend it1
 is emphatically  contradicted by the   
glorious perfection and invariability of

 the  order of nature4 ,can he not see  
that the degradation and wickedness  of 
humanity are in striking contrast to the
 glorious perfection and  invariability 
of the order of nature8 ,he is bound to 
give some reason  for this anomaly if he
 will not accept what revelation makes  
known to  us as the cause4    ,the      
abstract question as to the credibility 
of miracles ,paul discussed  in the year
 #eh at ,csarea1 in the presence of     
,festus and ,agrippa1 when  he said1    
,why should it be thought a thing       
incredible with you that  ,god should   
raise the dead8 and it has been dealt   
with so exhaustively  by ,newton1       
,locke1 ,butler1 ,paley1 ,whateley1     
,olinthus ,gregory1 ,wardlaw1           
,alexander1 and a host of other writers1
 that there is really little  more to be
 said4 ,the ,fortnightly ,review remarks
 that the arguments  on both sides are  
so familiar1 that it is not necessary to
 reproduce  the present author's mode of
 dealing with this part of the subject4 

,matthew ,arnold describes it as an     
attempt to refute ,dr4 ,mozley's        
,bampton ,lecture on ,miracles--a solid 
reply to a solid treatise2 but  that to 
engage in an  priori argument to prove  
that miracles are  impossible1 against  
an adversary who argues1  priori1 that  
they are  possible1 is the vainest      
labour in the world4 ,now1 as ,mr4      
,arnold is as  much a disbeliever in    
miracles as our author1 the worth of his
  abstract argument may be taken at ,mr4
 ,arnold's estimate1 and he says3  ,the 
author of ',supernatural ,religion'     
asserts again and again that  miracles  
are contrary to complete induction1 but 
no such law of nature  has been1 or can 
be1 established against the ,christian  
miracles1  therefore a complete         
induction there is not4    ,if the      
miracle-disbelieving ,matthew ,arnold   
does not accept our  author's abstract  
argument1 and since we find ,mr4 ,mill  
designating  two points in ,hume's      
celebrated attack as weak and           

vulnerable1  ,i need not linger over    
this part of the work4 ,i may assume    
that it is  sufficiently neutralised by 
men on his own side of the question as  
able and learned as himself4    ,but it 
is not only ,mr4 ,mill and ,mr4 ,arnold 
who have recently shown  that ,hume's   
celebrated argument1 which our author   
reproduces and  defends1 is not sound4  
,it is satisfactory to know that from   
,germany1  where so much sceptical      
criticism has been promulgated1 comes   
now the  most complete and conclusive   
exposure of the whole anti-,christian   
argument4 ,for the proof of this        
assertion ,i refer to a work which has  
just been translated into ,english1 and 
issued by ,messrs4 ,t4 and ,t4  ,clark  
of ,edinburgh1 entitled ,modern ,doubt  
and ,christian ,belief1#ah  by ,theodore
 ,christlieb1 ,d4,d41 ,university       
,preacher and ,professor of  ,theology  
at ,bonn2 a most able1 learned1 and     
exhaustive argument on the  whole       
question1 equal to the demands of those 

who desire to know all  about it1 and to
 whom ,i earnestly commend the book4 ,he
 mentions that  the great majority of   
the representatives of the present      
scientific  ,german theology are        
considered to have essentially decided  
in favour  of the faith1 not only on    
dogmatical1 but also on exegetical and  
speculative grounds 7p4 #bhi74      #ah 
,a series of apologetic lectures        
addressed to earnest seekers    after   
truth4    ,this is in strong contrast to
 the assertion of our author 7vol4 i4 p4
  #bg71 that it may broadly be said that
 ,english divines alone1 at the  present
 day1 maintain the reality and          
supernatural character of such          
phenomena2 and that the great majority  
of modern ,german critics  reject the   
miraculous altogether1 and consider the 
question as no  longer worthy of        
discussion4    ,for the benefit of those
 who may not have time to read ,dr4     
,christlieb's work1 ,i will transcribe a
 few passages bearing on the  abstract  

argument we are discussing4    ,things  
moral and spiritual cannot be           
mathematically demonstrated4 ,he  who   
said1 ',my thoughts are not as your     
thoughts1' has introduced in  ,his words
 and actions a far higher logic than    
that whose principles  ,aristotle laid  
down4 7,preface1 p4 xi47    ,however    
much1 in other respects1 our opponents  
may differ1 they all  agree in the      
denial of miracles1 and unitedly storm  
this bulwark of  the ,christian faith2  
and in its defence we have to combat    
them all at  once4 ,but whence this     
unanimity8 ,because1 with the truth of  
miracles1  the entire citadel of        
,christianity stands or falls4 ,for its 
beginning  is a miracle1 its ,author is 
a miracle1 its progress depends upon    
miracles1 and miracles will hereafter be
 its consummation 7p4 #bhe74    ,if the 
principle of miracles be set aside1 then
 all the heights of  ,christianity will 
be levelled with one stroke1 and nought 
will remain  but a heap of ruins4 ,if we

 banish the supernatural from the       
,bible1  there is nothing left us but   
the covers 7p4 #bhf74    ,the negation  
of miracles leads to the annihilation of
 all religion  7p4 #bhf74    ,many are  
averse to the miraculous through fear of
 superstition1 and  they overlook the   
sharp discrimination of ,scripture      
between belief and  superstition1       
between miraculous power and witchcraft4
 ,whereas the  sorcerer pretends to make
 supernatural powers subservient to his 
person1 the prophet or apostle accounts 
himself only the instrument of  ,god4   
,it is ,god who alone works4 ,the ,son  
,himself seeks through ,his  works not  
,his own honour1 but that of ,his       
,father4#ai ,notice the  unobtrusiveness
 of miracles in the holy ,scriptures1   
how ,christ sharply  repels the vain    
curiosity and vulgar thirst of ,his age 
for wonders1  and ,his prohibition of   
their publication4 ,compare with these  
features  the sensational miracles of   
the ,roman and ,oriental                

,churches--images of  saints who sweat  
blood1 nod the head1 roll the eyes--or  
the  ,whitsuntide marvels among the     
,greeks and ,armenians at ,jerusalem1   
when  the ,holy ,ghost lights up candles
 7but not hearts71 and you will  confess
 that such feats of legerdemain jugglery
 betray1 in their  external pomp and    
straining after effect1 anything but a  
,divine  origin4 ,a glance at the       
internal evidences of the truth in      
miracles1  at their moral and religious 
character1 which reflects and serves not
  only the power of ,god1 but also ,his 
truth and holiness1 and must prove      
pre-eminently their ,divine origin1 will
 show that it is not a very  difficult  
task for any one to defend his belief in
 the biblical  miracles against the     
charge of superstition 7p4 #big74       
#ai ,john viii4 #ej-ed4    ,those       
foundation-stones for the denial of all 
miracles which were  laid by ,spinoza   
and ,hume1 and on which the critics of  
the present day  still take a defiant   

stand1 have crumbled away piecemeal     
before our  eyes4 ,spinoza's axiom1 that
 the 'laws of nature are the only       
realisation of the ,divine will1' stands
 or falls with the pantheistic          
conception of the ,deity--a conception  
which is not only unworthy of  ,god and 
of man1 but also contrary to reason4    
,the ,source of all freedom  is supposed
 to have no freedom1 but to be immured  
in ,his own laws6 ,and  to this ,spinoza
 adds the conclusion3 ',if anything     
could take place in  nature contrary to 
its laws1 ,god would thereby contradict 
,himself4' ,we  have seen that just the 
converse is true1 namely1 that if ,god  
performed no miracles1 and left the     
world to itself1 ,he would  contradict  
,himself2 that ,he must perform miracles
 in order to maintain  the end for which
 the world was created1 and to bring it 
to the  destiny which was originally    
intended4 ,his miraculous action        
contradicts not nature and its laws1 but
 the unnatural1 which has  entered the  

world through sin1 and counteracts its  
destructive  consequences in order to   
restore the life of the world to holy   
order4  ,only those who1 like ,spinoza1 
deny the reality of sin and its         
destructive power1 can question the     
necessity of the miraculous4 ,the       
present condition1 not only of the human
 world1 but also of nature1  gives such 
opinions the lie at every step 7p4      
#cbg74    ,hume1 in like manner1 bases  
his attack against the miraculous on a  
series of false assumptions4 ,first3    
',miracles are violations of the  laws  
of nature4' ,this is false1 since       
miracles1 far from violating1  serve to 
re-establish the already violated order 
of the world1 and do  not injure the    
laws of nature4 ,second3 ',but we learn 
from experience  that the laws of nature
 are never violated4' ,this is false1   
because we  ourselves immediately       
interfere with our higher will in the   
laws of  nature1 and interrupt them     
without their being violated4 ,third3   

',for  miracles we have the questionable
 testimony of a few persons4' ,this is  
false1 because the entire ,scriptures   
are full of miracles1 and the           
historical testimony for them is        
unquestionable1 since the appearance  of
 ,israel and of the ,christian ,church  
is perfectly incomprehensible  without  
miracles4 ',but1' he goes on1 'against  
them we have universal  experience2     
therefore this stronger testimony       
nullifies the weaker and  more          
questionable4' ,the pith of ,hume's     
argument1 then1 is simply this3         
,because1 according to universal        
experience1 no miracles now take  place1
 therefore none can ever have occurred4 
,this proposition1 in the  first place1 
involves a begging of the question1     
since it is not at  all certain that no 
miracles are performed now-a-days2 and1 
second1 it  ignores the fact that       
different periods are subject to        
different laws1  and with their varied  
wants may demand varied kinds of        

revelatory  action on the part of ,god4 
,certainly1 the negro who should affirm 
that  there is no snow1 because in his  
country1 according to 'universal        
experience1' it never snows1 would be   
committing an absurdity4 ,and no  less  
illegitimate is it to measure all time  
by the universal 787  experience or     
non-experience of some particular       
period4 ,finally1 ,hume  goes on to     
demand1 as a condition for the          
credibility of miracles1  that they must
 be attested by an adequate number of   
sufficiently  educated and honest       
persons1 who could not be suspected of  
intentional  deception1 and that they   
should be done in so frequented a spot  
that  the detection of the illusion     
would be inevitable4 ,we shall see      
further 7in ,lectures vi4 and vii47 that
 these conditions were all  essentially 
fulfilled in the case of the ,new       
,testament miracles4 ,and  yet1 in spite
 of the evident weakness of ,hume's     
argument1 ,strauss  would have us       

believe that ,hume's ',essay on         
,miracles' is so  universally           
convincing1 that it may be said to have 
settled the  question 7',leben ,jesu1'  
page #adh74 ,the author of the ',life of
 ,christ'  forgets to mention that ,hume
 has long since been refuted in detail  
by  the earlier and later ,english      
apologists 7e4 g41 by ,campbell1 ,adams1
  ,hay1 ,price1 ,douglass1 ,paley1      
,whateley1 ,dwight1 ,alexander1         
,wardlaw1 and  ,pearson71 to say nothing
 of the ,germans2 but then he knows that
 only a  very small proportion of his   
readers is aware of this fact 7p4 #cbh74
    ,to these objections not even our   
most modern philosophers have been  able
 to add really new ones2 and as against 
them all we may  confidently maintain   
the following truths as the result of   
our  investigation3--    ,the           
possibility of the miraculous rests upon
 the uninterrupted  activity of a living
 ,god in the world4    ,its necessity   
arises1 on the one hand1 from the       

,divine end and aim  of the world2 and  
on the other1 from the disturbance      
introduced into  its development through
 sin4    ,therefore1 although miracles  
are supernatural1 they are not          
unnatural4 ,far from violating the      
conditions of life1 of nature1 or of    
humanity1 they re-establish the life of 
the world which has already  been       
deranged1 and initiate the higher order 
of things for which the  universe was   
created 7p4 #cbh74    ,of ,baur1 ,dr4   
,christlieb writes3--    ,of all modern 
opponents of our old faith1 the greatest
 is ,dr4  ,ferdinand ,christian von     
,baur1 ,professor of ,theology at       
,tbingen 7died  ,december #b1 #ahfj71   
one of the greatest1 if not the greatest
  theological scholar of this century2  
after ,neander1 the most notable        
historian of the ,church1 not only in   
,germany but in the world2 the  most    
indefatigable of investigators1         
especially as regards the history  of   
,primitive ,christianity1 in the        

elucidation of which he has deserved    
well of theology4 ,he stands a head and 
shoulders above all our modern          
opponents of the miraculous4444 ,if     
human power1 human diligence1 and       
acuteness1 could ever bring about the   
overthrow of our faith1 this man  would 
have accomplished it4 ,but our present  
theology is daily  becoming more        
convinced that he was incompetent to    
this task1 and  that1 in spite of all   
his unutterable exertions1 he did not   
succeed in  proving the merely natural  
origin of ,christianity4 ,this is one of
 the  surest signs that the rock upon   
which our faith is founded is           
absolutely indestructible#bj 7p4 #eje74 
#bj ,the ,tbingen school1 which has     
somewhat modified the views of    ,baur1
 its founder1 has at present its chief  
seats in ,switzerland1    ,france1 and  
,holland4--,dr4 ,c41 p4 #eaf4    ,i must
 not attempt to give the points of ,dr4 
,christlieb's critique and  refutation  
of the ,tbingen theory1 but refer the   

reader to his  invaluable work4         
,,chapter ,,ii4    ,,the ,,synoptic     
,,gospels4      ,i consider the ,gospels
 decidedly genuine1 for they are        
penetrated by  the reflection of a      
majesty which proceeded from the ,person
 of ,christ2  and this is ,divine1 if   
ever ,divinity appeared upon earth4     
,goethe4          ,,chapter ,,ii4       
,,the ,,synoptic ,,gospels4    ,,clement
 ,,of ,,rome--,,the ,,epistle ,,of      
,,barnabas--,,the ,,pastor ,,of         
,,hermas4      ,the argument based on   
the investigation which is carried on in
 the  seven hundred pages of the second 
and third parts of our author's  work1  
is chiefly the negative one from        
silence4 ,he examines with  great       
minuteness the date1 character1 and     
authorship of all the four  ,gospels1   
and refers to all the writings of the   
early ,church for traces  of them2      
insisting upon the silence of those     
early writings as being  of as much     
importance as any supposed allusions to 

the ,gospels found  in such authors as  
,justin ,martyr1 ,clement of ,rome1 and 
others who  lived soon after the        
apostolic age2 the result being1 in our 
author's  opinion1 unfavourable to the  
view entertained by orthodox believers4 
,i demur to his conclusions4 ,i notice a
 want of fairness in some of his        
quotations and in some of his           
translations1 and a want of accuracy in 
some of his statements1 as well as      
defects in his reasoning1 which ,i  have
 no doubt others will comment upon who  
may review the book4 ,some  of these    
defects will appear as ,i proceed4      
,when ,i find him saying1 as he does1   
vol4 ii4 page #chg1 ,we must1  however1 
carefully restrict ourselves to the     
limits of our inquiry1  and resist any  
temptation to enter upon an exhaustive  
discussion of  the problem presented by 
the ,fourth ,gospel from a more general 
literary point of view1 ,i expect to    
find difficulties1 which of  course     
there are and must be1 brought into     

prominence and carped at1  while the    
general evidence upon which ,divine     
revelation is immovably  based is       
carefully avoided4    ,the second part1 
on the ,synoptic ,gospels1 is a long    
investigation1  extending over five     
hundred pages1 and dealing with three   
and twenty  works by separate           
non-biblical authors of the first and   
second  centuries2 and its object is to 
disprove that they were written solely  
by ,matthew1 ,mark1 and ,luke1 and to   
support the hypothesis that those       
,gospels were not in existence until    
long after the times of the  apostles1  
and1 therefore1 that they furnish no    
evidence from  eye-witnesses of the     
miracles they record4    ,the third part
 deals with the ,fourth ,gospel in a    
similar manner1 and  occupies more than 
two hundred pages4 ,our author's inquiry
 into the  reality of ,divine revelation
 seems1 at this point1 to involve the   
following questions3 ,does the extant   
literature of the close of the  first   

and the beginning of the second century 
quote from1 or allude  to1 the three    
,synoptic ,gospels8 ,and if this cannot 
be answered in the  affirmative1 does   
such silence prove they were not then   
written2 and1  if so1 is the conclusion 
deducible that the miracles recorded are
 not  credible8    ,in the preliminary  
remarks with which he opens the second  
part1 he  says3 ,when such writers1     
quoting largely from the ,old ,testament
 and  other sources1 deal with subjects 
which would naturally be assisted by    
references to our ,gospels1 and still   
more so by quoting such works as        
authoritative1 and yet we find that not 
only they do not show any  knowledge of 
those ,gospels1 but actually quote      
passages from unknown  sources1 or      
sayings of ,jesus derived from          
tradition1 the inference  must be that  
our ,gospels were either unknown1 or not
 recognised as  works of any authority  
at the time4 ,in reference to this      
sentence ,i  remark that many of the    

passages he specifies and examines are  
not  from unknown sources1 but from the 
,gospels1 because1 if not strictly      
verbatim1 they are in the sense         
identical1 and almost identical in  the 
language2 therefore such quotations are 
evidence that the ,gospels  existed at  
the time4 ,the insinuation that they are
 from tradition is  purely conjecture1  
and altogether improbable1 because our  
,gospels  contain the passages4 ,there  
is not the slightest reason for looking 
away from our gospels1 and imagining the
 quotations to be either from  unknown  
sources or tradition4 ,this will appear 
as we proceed4 ,i will  give in his own 
words the results of his examination of 
what he  designates evidence for the    
,synoptic ,gospels1 and then follow him 
step by step through the journey he     
takes into early ,patristic ,church     
history4    ,he says 7vol4 ii4 page     
#bdh73 ,we may now briefly sum up the   
results of  our examination of the      
evidence for the ,synoptic ,gospels4    

,after having  exhausted the literature 
and the testimony bearing on the point1 
we  have not found a single distinct    
trace of any of those ,gospels during   
the first century and a half after the  
death of ,jesus4 ,only once  during the 
whole of that period do we find any     
tradition even that any  one of our     
,evangelists composed a ,gospel at all1 
and that tradition1  so far from        
favouring our ,synoptics1 is fatal to   
the claims of the  first and second4    
,papias1 about the middle of the second 
century1 on  the occasion to which we   
refer1 records that ,matthew composed   
the  ,discourses of the ,lord in the    
,hebrew tongue1 a statement which       
totally excludes the claim of our ,greek
 ,gospel to apostolic origin4  ,mark1 he
 said1 wrote down from the casual       
preaching of ,peter the  sayings and    
doings of ,jesus1 but without orderly   
arrangement1 as he  was not himself a   
follower of the ,master1 and merely     
recorded what  fell from the apostle4   

,this description likewise shows that   
our actual  ,second ,gospel could not in
 its present form have been the work of 
,mark4 ,there is no other reference     
during the period to any writing of     
,matthew or ,mark1 and no mention at all
 of any work ascribed to ,luke4  ,if it 
be considered that there is any         
connection between ,marcion's  ,gospel  
and our ,third ,synoptic1 any evidence  
so derived is of an  unfavourable       
character for that ,gospel1 as it       
involves a charge  against it of being  
interpolated and debased by ,jewish     
elements4 ,any  argument for the mere   
existence of our ,synoptics1 based upon 
their  supposed rejection by heretical  
leaders and sects1 has the evitable     
disadvantage that the very testimony    
which would show their existence  would 
oppose their authenticity4 ,there is no 
evidence of their use by  heretical     
leaders1 however1 and no direct         
reference to them by any  writer1       
heretical or orthodox1 whom we have     

examined4 ,we need scarcely  add that no
 reason whatever has been shown for     
accepting the testimony  of these       
,gospels as sufficient to establish the 
reality of miracles  and of a direct    
,divine revelation4 7,here he says1 in a
 foot-note3 ,a  comparison of the       
contents of the three ,synoptics would  
have confirmed  the conclusion1 but this
 is not at present necessary1 and we    
must  hasten on47 ,it is not pretended  
that more than one of the ,synoptic     
,gospels was written by an eye-witness  
of the miraculous occurrences  reported2
 and whilst no evidence has been1 or can
 be1 produced even of  the historical   
accuracy of the narratives1 no testimony
 as to the  correctness of the          
inferences from the external phenomena  
exists or is  now even conceivable4 ,the
 discrepancy between the amount of      
evidence  required and that which is    
forthcoming1 however1 is greater than   
under  the circumstances could have been
 thought possible4    ,there is a       

plausibility1 combined with an assumed  
conclusiveness1 in  this summary1 which 
may impose for a moment on those readers
 of his  book who are not conversant    
with the question under discussion4     
,they  will be likely to have glanced at
 the foot-notes indicating the great    
number of books referred to1 and take it
 for granted that an author so  learned 
and painstaking would scarcely have     
asserted conclusions so  boldly without 
having found good reasons for them1     
which1 before he  has done1 he will     
adduce and make plain4 ,it is evident1  
however1 that  whatever his reasons may 
be as a whole1 when his promised further
  volume has been published1 it is quite
 certain that1 so far1 his  argument    
from the silence of early writings1     
supposing he had  conducted it          
successfully1 combined with his logic on
 the abstract  question of the          
credibility of miracles1 is not         
sufficient to justify  his assertion    
that the testimony of the ,gospels is   

insufficient to  establish the reality  
of miracles2 because the ,gospels might 
have  existed1 although no trace of them
 can be found in the fragments  extant  
of books written during the few years   
between the composition  of the ,gospels
 and the period when they were generally
 acknowledged as  authoritative1 and    
read everywhere in the ,christian       
assemblies on the  ,lord's ,day1 that   
is1 from about ,a4,d4 #ajj to #aej4     
,the reader will be unwise if he allow  
himself to be impressed by the          
multiplicity of selected witnesses from 
a selected period1 other  evidence being
 unappealed to4 ,if a hundred of        
witnesses are1 in a  court of justice1  
produced to swear to the identity of a  
man1 the  impression is created that it 
cannot but be established4 ,we have     
lately seen how from being inevitable is
 such an outside verdict4 ,the  special 
pleading of authorship1 like that of the
 ,queen's ,bench1  startles and         
impresses for a moment2 but after the   

investigation of  all the facts and     
circumstances of the case is complete1  
and the judge  has dissected the        
evidence1 the sophistry is found not to 
have helped  the side which used it1 but
 has tended to strengthen the other4 ,i 
remark1 before following our author in  
his references to the witnesses  he has 
selected for cross-examination1 it is   
not conceded to him the  right to draw a
 line where it best suits him in ,church
 history1 and  decide the case in the   
absence of the evidence of witnesses on 
the  outside of it4 ,he draws such a    
line in specifying the first century    
and a half after the death of ,christ4  
,if the probable date of  ,christ's     
birth be the third year before the      
commencement of the  ,christian era1 we 
have this line drawn at ,a4,d4 #ahj1 at 
which point the  second generation of   
,christians had only just passed away1  
when direct  tradition had not lost its 
freshness4 ,while men and women were    
living  who had heard from eye-witnesses

 of the events of ,christ's life on     
earth1 the story of ,his advent1 death1 
resurrection1 and ascension1  the books 
recording the facts for future ages were
 in a less prominent  position in the   
,church than immediately afterwards4    
,they were then  read in all the        
,churches1 but commentaries on them and 
written  references to them were not    
very numerous2 therefore what we can    
trace  of such before that time is      
comparatively scanty4 ,but1 immediately 
afterwards1 in the third and fourth     
generation of ,christians1 when  there  
were no men living who could say1 ,my   
grandfather or my venerable  teacher    
told me so and so of ,christ1 and he saw
 ,christ in ,galilee  after ,his        
resurrection1 when there were not less  
than five hundred of  ,his disciples    
assembled1 and he was present when ,he  
ascended in a  cloud--while such persons
 were living1 the testimony of a book   
was to  them of lesser weight and       
importance1 for they could say that they

 had  the truth1 not from the written   
words of a disciple1 but from his own   
lips4 ,as ,irenus well remembered       
,polycarp1 so might persons living      
about the middle of the second century  
remember the teaching of the  ,apostle  
,john4 ,the argument from silence1      
applied to the early period  restricted 
to the year #ahj1 is for this and other 
reasons far from  being conclusive1     
while the evidence furnished by such    
writings as  those of ,irenus1          
,tertullian1 ,clement of ,alexandria1   
,theophilus of  ,antioch1 ,tatian1      
,hippolytus1 and ,origen1 who belong to 
the subsequent  years of the first and  
the opening of the second century1 is   
much more  important than is indicated  
by our author4 ,his investigation       
ignores  to a great extent the          
circumstantial evidence of this later   
period4 ,he  says 7vol4 ii4 p4 #chg7 he 
must be careful to restrict himself to  
the  limits of his inquiry1 and to avoid
 the more general literary point  of    

view1 and he does so restrict himself4  
,if a person really desires  to decipher
 an obscure antiquarian manuscript or   
inscription1 he does  not say1 ,i must  
carefully keep to this                  
imperfectly-lighted room1 and  not step 
into broad daylight4    ,here is a      
specimen of the way he draws an         
inference4 ,in arguing  against the     
authority of the four ,gospels1 he says1
 vol4 ii4 p4 #deg1  ,no two of them     
agree even about so simple a matter of  
fact as the  inscription on the cross4  
,now the exact words1 as given in each  
,gospel1 are as follows3 ,matthew gives 
the inscription in eight  words--,this  
is ,jesus the ,king of the ,jews2 ,mark 
in five words--,the  ,king of the ,jews2
 ,luke in seven words--,this is the     
,king of the  ,jews2 and ,john in eight 
words--,jesus of ,nazareth the ,king of 
the  ,jews4    ,this needs no comment4  
,could anything be more natural than    
such slight  discrepancies8 ,would four 
shorthand reporters of the present day  

have  been more exact8    ,the first    
early writer he examines is ,clement1   
,bishop of ,rome1 who1  towards the     
close of the first century1 wrote an    
epistle to the  ,corinthians4 ,it is    
attached to the ancient copy of the     
,scriptures  known as the ,codex        
,alexandrinus1 written in the fifth     
century1 and  preserved in the ,british 
,museum4    ,this writer's fame         
surpassed all others in the first       
century4 ,his  first ,epistle to the    
,corinthians1 written in ,greek1 is     
deemed to be  genuine2 but1 says ,dr4   
,mosheim1 it seems to have been         
corrupted and  interpolated4            
,eusebius assures us it was received by 
all1 and reverenced next to  the ,holy  
,scriptures1 and therefore publicly read
 in the ,churches for  some ages1 even  
till his time4#ba      #ba ,cod4 cxii4  
c4 #ch4    ,the epistle itself makes no 
mention of the author's name4 ,it       
purports  to be addressed by the ,church
 of ,god which sojourns at ,rome to the 

,church of ,god sojourning at ,corinth4 
,but in the ,codex ,alexandrinus  the   
title of ,the ,first ,epistle of        
,clement to the ,corinthians is  added  
at the end4 ,internal evidence shows it 
was written after some  persecution of  
the ,church1 either that of ,nero1      
,a4,d4 #fd-gj1 or  ,domitian1 at the end
 of the century4 ,the epistle contains  
these  words3--    ,especially          
remembering the words of the ,lord      
,jesus1 which he spake  teaching        
gentleness and long-suffering4 ,for thus
 he said1 ,be pitiful1  that ye may be  
pitied2 forgive1 that it may be forgiven
 you2 as ye do1  so shall it be done to 
you2 as ye give1 so shall it be given to
 you2  as ye judge1 so shall it be      
judged to you2 as ye show kindness1     
shall  kindness be shown to you2 with   
what measure ye mete1 with the same it  
shall be measured to you4    ,our author
 himself shows that these precepts      
cannot be mere floating  tradition4 ,he 
says such seems impossible 7vol4 i4 p4  

#bbf74 ,they are  evidently the words of
 ,jesus taken from a written source1 but
 he  contends that they are not a       
quotation from the ,sermon on the       
,mount1  as recorded in the ,gospels as 
we have them1 but from some other       
,gospel which is not extant4 ,he says3  
,when the great difference is           
considered between the parallel passages
 in ,matthew and ,luke1 and  still more 
between these and the passage in ,mark1 
it is easy to  understand that that     
other ,gospel may have contained a      
version  differing as much from them as 
they do from each other4    ,i remark1  
supposing that ,clement had before him  
all three versions1  which differ from  
each other1 what is more natural than   
that he should  give the sense without  
adhering to the exact words of any4     
,only an  inquirer who has a bias       
against ,christianity would think of    
disputing  the quotation4    ,if        
,epiphanius clearly wrote without having
 the ,gospel of ,luke before  him1 as   

our author states on page #ajj1 and if  
,tertullian evidently  quotes that      
,gospel from memory1 as he also says on 
the same page2 why  should it be assumed
 as a matter of course that ,clement had
 the  writings before him8 ,he also may 
have quoted from memory4    ,there is   
something strangely marvellous about the
 disappearance of  these imaginary lost 
records of the ,sermon on the ,mount4   
,we know that  in the year ,a4,d4 #aci  
,justin ,martyr wrote that the ,memoirs 
of the  ,apostles1 called ,evangels     
7gospels71 were read after the prophets 
every ,lord's ,day in the assembly of   
the ,christians4 ,where were they  then8
 ,were they identical with these memoirs
 called ,gospels8 ,where  were they     
about the year ,a4,d4 #ahj1 when ,irenus
 proves that four  ,gospels were held in
 the highest esteem1 and were read in   
all the  ,churches2 alluding to them as 
the four columns of the ,church1 and    
comparing them to the four quarters of  
the world1 the four principal  winds1   

and the four figures of the ,cherubim8  
,where were they when he  says3 ,so well
 established are our ,gospels1 that even
 teachers of  error themselves bear     
testimony to them3 even they rest their 
objections on the foundations of the    
,gospels8#bb ,this hypothesis of  our   
author is certainly going out of the way
 to find the reason for a  thing4 ,it is
 to be remembered that what is evidenced
 by ,irenus1 who  wrote about ,a4,d4    
#ahj1 and was the pupil of ,polycarp1 is
 highly  important4 ,dr4 ,mosheim says  
his five books against heresies1 the    
only  writings of his extant1 are a     
splendid monument of antiquity4#bc ,from
  the evidence of ,irenus1 it is clear  
that the four ,gospels must have  been  
occupying a special and authoritative   
place in the ,church some  time before  
the time he wrote his five books on     
heresies1 about the  year #ahj4         
,tischendorf1 who knows as much as any  
man about the  ,scripture manuscripts1  
says3 ,it is a well-established fact    

that1  already between ,a4,d4 #aej and  
#bjj1 not only were the ,gospels        
translated  into ,latin and ,syriac1 but
 also that their number was defined to  
be  only four1 neither more nor less4   
,the ,syriac version of the ,new        
,testament called the ,peshito1 a work  
of immense value1 as the language  is   
almost identical with that spoken by    
,christ1 a translation  admirably       
executed1 is generally assigned1 says   
,tischendorf1 to the  end of the second 
century1 though we have not any positive
 proof to  offer2 and the ,latin version
 had acquired before this period a      
certain public authority4 ,as the man   
who translated ,irenus's five  books    
from ,greek into ,latin follows the     
,italic version1 and as  ,tertullian1 in
 the quotation which he makes from the  
,latin  translation of ,irenus copies   
that translator1 ,tischendorf justly    
argues that some time must have elapsed 
between that date when the  translation 
is known to have been in existence1 and 

the period when  they were first        
separated from other ,church writings1  
and attained a  prominent and sacred    
character4 ,thus we get to the apostolic
 age for  the origin of all the four    
,gospels1 and there seems to be no      
interval  of time sufficient to account 
for our author's primitive ,gospels to  
have disappeared1 leaving no trace of   
their existence4 ,it is  enormously more
 probable that the four ,gospels alluded
 to by ,irenus  and ,tertullian         
contained the records from which        
,clement quoted the  passage of the     
,sermon on the ,mount1 than that there  
were primitive  independent writings    
which were soon lost1 obtaining no      
recognition  when the separate ,gospel  
manuscripts became associated with the  
,old  ,testament1 and were read after   
them in the ,christian assemblies4 ,our 
author says the passage quoted by       
,clement1 referring to the ,sermon on   
the ,mount1 is decidedly opposed to the 
pretensions made on behalf of  the      

,synoptics4 ,i do not quite know what   
pretensions he alludes to1  but ,i am   
not defending pretensions1 either       
ecclesiastical or  non-ecclesiastical4  
,it is not necessary1 in the defence of 
the  ,gospels1 to assert that the four  
,evangelists whose names are attached   
to them wrote every word2 that they only
 contain records of what those          
disciples were either eye-witnesses of1 
or1 in the case of ,mark and  ,luke1    
heard ,peter and ,paul preach4 ,the     
formul1 according to  ,matthew1         
according to ,mark1 according to ,luke1 
according to  ,john1 do not imply that1 
in the most ancient opinion1 these      
recitals  were written from beginning to
 end by ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 and     
,john4#bd ,it is enough to know that the
 writings so far emanated from  those   
disciples as to justify the titles they 
bear1 and their  reception by the early 
,church1 as the true record of the      
important  transactions to which they   
refer4 ,that reception of them was      

sufficiently near to the date of their  
composition to preclude the  probability
 that the early ,christian ,church had  
not the means of  testing their         
genuineness or historical data1 while   
their internal  evidence is such as to  
confirm their truthfulness and          
authority4      #bb ,adv4 ,hr4 iii4 #aa4
 #g4      #bc ,they were written while  
,eleutherius was ,bishop of ,rome       
7,a4,d4 #agg    to #aic71 as is evident 
from his ,catalogue 7,lib4 iii4 c4 #c7  
of the    ,bishops of ,rome1 for        
,eleutherius is the last of the twelve  
he    mentions1 and was then in         
possession of that pastorate4      #bd  
,see ,rnan1 ,life of ,jesus1 p4 #h1     
cheap edition4    ,as to ,luke1 says    
,rnan1 doubt is scarcely possible4 ,it  
is a regular  composition1 founded on   
anterior documents1 the work of one man1
 who  selects1 prunes1 and combines4    
,the author is certainly the same as    
that of the ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,now
 the author of the ,acts is a  companion

 of ,paul1 a title which applies to     
,luke exactly4 ,the name of  ,lucus     
7contraction of ,lucanus7 being very    
rare1 we need not fear one  of those    
homonyms which cause so many            
perplexities in questions of  criticism 
relative to the ,new ,testament4 ,it is 
beyond doubt that the  author of the    
,third ,gospel and of the ,acts was a   
man of the second  generation1 and that 
is sufficient for our object4 ,the date 
can be  determined by considerations    
drawn from the ,gospel itself4 ,the     
twenty-first chapter1 inseparable from  
the rest of the work1 was  certainly    
written a short time after the          
destruction of ,jerusalem4 ,we  are here
 upon solid ground1 for we are concerned
 with a work written  entirely by the   
same hand1 and of the most perfect      
unity4 ,if the  ,gospel of ,luke is     
dated1 those of ,matthew and ,mark are  
dated also2 for  it is certain that the 
,third ,gospel is posterior to the first
 two1 and  exhibits the character of a  

much more advanced composition4         
,every one drew largely on the ,gospel  
tradition then current4 ,the ,acts  of  
the ,apostles and the ancient ,fathers  
quote many words of ,jesus  which appear
 authentic1 and are not found in the    
,gospels we possess4  ,the life of      
,jesus in the ,synoptics rests upon two 
original  documents--first1 the         
discourses of ,jesus collected by       
,matthew2  second1 the collection of    
anecdotes and personal reminiscences    
which  ,mark wrote from the             
recollections of ,peter4 ,we may say    
that we have  these two documents still1
 mixed with accounts from another       
source1 in  the two first ,gospels1     
which bear1 not without reason1 the name
 of the  ,gospel according to ,matthew1 
and of the ,gospel according to ,mark4  
,it  was when tradition became weakened1
 in the second half of the second       
century1 that the texts bearing the name
 of the apostles took a  decisive       
authority1 and obtained the force of    

law4    ,i have selected these passages 
from ,rnan's ,life of ,jesus1 as they   
bear upon the view of the origin of the 
,gospels which may be  entertained with 
consistency by those who accept their   
authority1  without insisting upon any  
such pretensions as our author seems to 
combat1 and which are not necessary for 
their defence4    ,i object also to the 
case being tried upon an indictment     
which  includes a uniform1 plenary1 and 
verbal inspiration4 ,nor is it1 ,i      
submit1 necessary to defend the view    
that the ,old and ,new ,testaments      
include no words but what are of ,divine
 authority4    ,i maintain that ,god has
 supernaturally revealed ,his character 
and ,his  will in the ,bible1 but ,i    
know not where the hard and fast line is
  which separates the human from the    
superhuman in our versions of these     
sacred documents1 the general           
characteristic of which is that they are
  inspired productions2 that therein    
holy men of ,god spake as they were     

moved by the ,holy ,ghost4#be ,not the  
words which man's wisdom  teacheth1 but 
which the ,holy ,ghost teacheth4#bf     
#be #b ,pet4 i4 #ba4      #bf #a ,cor4  
ii4 #ac4    ,god at sundry times and in 
divers manners spake in time past unto  
the  fathers1 and having subsequently   
spoken by ,his ,son1 authenticates ,his 
message1 which1 we cannot doubt1 the    
,holy ,spirit inspired the apostles  to 
record1 by a special inspiration1 as ,he
 did in pre-,christian times4    ,it is 
human nature for man to pervert even his
 best of blessings4 ,jews  and          
,christians alike have done so4 ,when we
 think of the translators of  the       
,hebrew ,scriptures into ,greek altering
 the prophetical dates1 to  mislead as  
to the coming of ,messiah1 as was done  
in the ,septuagint  ,version2 of the    
genealogy of ,joseph being fitted into  
three periods of  fourteen generations  
each1 to square with ,jewish notions of 
numerical  precision and completeness2  
of the verse in ,john's first epistle   

7v4  #g7 inserted in the text to add    
strength to the theological phraseology 
of a creed2 and of the first verses of  
the eighth chapter of the  ,fourth      
,gospel being left out in several of the
 most ancient ,,mss41  evidently owing  
to some great authority1 such as        
,eusebius 7who was  ordered by          
,constantine to prepare copies of the   
,scriptures71 having  suppressed them2  
we cannot but be suspicious that human  
infirmity and  meddlesomeness have1 to  
some extent1 interfered with the        
transmission  of the ,divine oracles4   
,the fountain is undoubtedly pure1 but  
has not  the channel been polluted      
through which the ,divine truths have   
been  transmitted8    ,we have next a   
reference to the ,epistle of ,barnabas  
and the ,pastor  of ,hermas1 both of    
which are attached to that ancient copy 
of the  ,scriptures known as the ,codex 
,sinaiticus1 recently found by          
,tischendorf1 in a monastery in the     
desert of ,sinai1 and now preserved  at 

,st4 ,petersburg4 ,it is the most       
ancient ,,ms4 of the ,scriptures we  can
 refer to1 and is supposed to have been 
written in the fourth  century4         
,after the ,new ,testament1 in this     
valuable ,,ms41 is placed the epistle   
ascribed to ,barnabas4 ,it is complete4 
,it was written some time between  the  
year #gj and the close of the first     
century1 and it contains these          
words3--,let us therefore beware lest we
 should be found as it is  written1     
,many are called1 few are chosen4 ,these
 words certainly  appear to be quoted   
from the twenty-second chapter of       
,matthew1 but our  author says there is 
a similar passage in the apocryphal book
 of  ,ezra--,there be many created1 but 
few shall be saved1 and he asks  us to  
believe it is quoted from the latter4   
,as we have not the same  bias as he    
has1 we decline1 for obvious reasons1 to
 do so1 although he  points out that the
 verse in ,matthew is not in the oldest 
codex4  ,unfortunately the one in the   

,british ,museum is defective at that   
part1  but the verse appears in later   
,,mss4 ,he says1 had the ,epistle of    
,barnabas been seriously regarded as a  
work of the apostle of that  name1 it   
could scarcely have failed to attain    
canonical rank4 ,if this  be our        
author's opinion1 there was more        
discrimination used by the men  who     
decided what writings were admissible   
into the canon than he has  elsewhere   
given them credit for4 ,the ,epistle of 
,barnabas also contains  the following  
important passage3--    ,but when he    
selected his own apostles1 who should   
preach his gospel1  who were sinners    
above all sin1 in order that he might   
show that he  came not to call the      
righteous1 but sinners1 then he         
manifested  himself to be the ,son of   
,god4    ,our author says that the words
 he came not to call the righteous1  but
 sinners1 very probably a pious scribe  
added in the margin1 and  they were     
afterwards included in the text of the  

epistle4    ,i remark that this is quite
 a gratuitous assumption4 ,i see no     
probability of anything of the kind1 and
 ,i agree with ,tischendorf1 who  asks1 
,could any one mistake the words being a
 quotation from ,matt4  ix4 #ac8 ,but   
our author insinuates that this chapter 
should be  dissected1 and the miraculous
 eliminated4 ,he says the words of      
,jesus1  ,they that be whole need not a 
physician1 but they that are sick1      
evidently belong to the oldest tradition
 of the ,gospel2 and he gives  the      
opinion of ,ewald1 who ascribed them    
7ver4 #abad71 apart from the  remainder 
of the chapter1 originally to the       
collection of  discourses#bg from which1
 with two intermediate books1 he        
considers  our present ,gospel of       
,matthew was composed4      #bg         
,spruchsammlung4    ,these are the sort 
of conjectures upon which our author    
builds his  argument4 ,the ninth chapter
 of ,matthew is too full of the         
miraculous  to be accepted as a whole4  

,it records how ,jesus forgave sins1 to 
the  sick gave health1 to the blind     
sight1 to the dumb speech1 and to the   
dead life2 all of which is out of       
keeping with his bias and the ,german   
rationalism with which he has such      
profound sympathy4    ,tischendorf finds
 a further analogy between the ,epistle 
of ,barnabas  and the ,gospel of        
,matthew in the words1 ,david           
prophesied1 ,the ,lord  said unto my    
,lord1 ,sit at my right hand until ,i   
make thine enemies thy  footstool2 and  
inquires1 ,could ,barnabas so write     
without the  supposition that his       
readers had ,matt4 xxii4 #d before them8
 and does  not such a supposition       
likewise infer the actual authority of  
,matthew's ,gospel8 ,because the passage
 is in the ,psalms1 our author          
ridicules ,tischendorf's inference4 ,it 
is1 to say the least1 quite as  probable
 that ,barnabas quoted from the ,gospel 
as from the ,psalms1 and  there is      
propriety in ,tischendorf's opinion and 

inference4    ,in designating his       
argument rabid and preposterous1 our    
author  exposes himself to arrows winged
 with similar feathers4 ,when he        
unwarrantably pretends to know that the 
earliest records of what  ,jesus did and
 taught did not contain anything but    
what comports with  the ,german school  
of theology which he favours1 and which 
he has done  his best to make familiar  
to ,english readers1 without exposing   
himself  personally to the odium which  
attaches to such opinions in a          
,christian  community1 he has no claim  
to indulgence from those who examine his
  language and animadvert thereupon4    
,considering that1 according to his own 
showing1 the belief was1 at all  events1
 prevalent in the ,christian ,church in 
the middle of the second  century that  
these writings of the apostles were     
authentic1 and that  he cannot account  
for their being so esteemed1 so soon    
after the  events occurred to which they
 refer1 as to be universally read in all

  the ,christian ,churches2 it is1 to   
say the least1 unbecoming in him to     
exalt his conjectures into oracles4     
,other critics1 quite as inquiring1     
able1 and learned1 more modestly say1   
,the subject presents a variety  of     
embarrassing circumstances1 so that it  
is difficult to arrive at a             
satisfactory conclusion4 ,he lays       
himself open to be classified with      
those who rush in where angels fear to  
tread4 ,there is a close  analogy       
between those who say in their hearts   
there is no ,god1 and  those who say ,he
 has never spoken2 and we know what is  
said in the  ,bible of the former4    ,i
 will give here a specimen of the way   
our author quotes to suit his  own      
argument1 and you will see whether the  
epithet preposterous is  at all         
applicable to him4    ,in showing how   
much ,john was opposed to ,paul on the  
question of  ,gentile ,christians       
observing ,jewish rites1 he says1       
,allusion is  undoubtedly made to ,paul 

in the ,epistle to the ,churches1 in the
  ,apocalypse2 and1 ,it is clear that   
,paul is referred to in the  address to 
the ,church of ,ephesus4 ,the first     
passage is ,rev4 ii4 #b1  ,i know thy   
works and thy patience1 444 and how thou
 hast tried them  which say they are    
apostles and are not1 and hast found    
them false2  implying that ,john was so 
opposed to ,paul as to deny his being an
  apostle1 which is grossly             
improbable4#bh ,but the full absurdity  
of  the idea is more manifest in the    
next quotation from ,rev4 ii4 #ad3 ,but 
,i have a few things against thee       
because thou hast there them that  hold 
the doctrine of ,balaam1 who taught     
,balak to cast a  stumbling-block before
 the children of ,israel1 to eat things 
sacrificed unto idols1 c4 ,it would not 
have answered his purpose  to finish the
 sentence1 so he stops at the word      
idols1 and puts  c4 ,when ,i mention    
that the words which are represented by 
the  c4 are and to commit fornication1  

you will agree with me1  that not only  
is the idea of ,john saying that ,paul  
had taught the  ,christians at ,pergamos
 to sin in this respect the climax of   
absurdity1  but that an author who      
quotes so unfairly1 and reasons so      
strangely1  is not to be implicitly     
trusted1 nor his conclusions accepted4  
,he has  adopted the erroneous notion of
 ,baur1 the late eminent ,professor of  
,theology at ,tbingen1 and other ,german
 writers1 that the difference  between  
the ,jewish and ,christian converts1 in 
reference to  circumcision and other    
,jewish observances1 amounted to a party
  contest1 which caused ,paul and ,peter
 and ,james to be seriously at          
variance4 ,now we know the facts of the 
temporary disagreement1 and  they       
certainly do not justify such a         
conclusion4 ,the hypothesis of  such a  
,pauline and a ,petrine contest needs   
only to be brought into  contact with   
the letters of ,paul1 in which he refers
 frequently to the  ,gentile ,churches  

sending help to the ,jewish church at   
,jerusalem1 and  it is at once exploded4
 ,he tells the ,galatians how it was    
arranged at  ,jerusalem1 after the      
matters in dispute had been discussed1  
that he  and ,barnabas1 receiving the   
right hand of fellowship1 should go to  
the  heathen1 and ,james1 ,peter1 and   
,john to the circumcision2 only the     
latter stipulated that the poor at      
,jerusalem were to be remembered1  which
 ,paul says1 ,i was forward to do4 ,and 
he instructs the  ,corinthians in his   
first epistle as to their collections on
 the first  day of the week before he   
came1 that their liberality might be    
ready  to send to the poor saints at    
,jerusalem4 ,there is here the very     
opposite of such extreme hostile and    
disgraceful party feeling as must  have 
existed if ,john could indulge in such  
language regarding ,paul as  our author 
attributes to him4 ,there were false    
men1 such as ,simon the  sorcerer2 false
 apostles1 such as ,paul alludes to2 and

 corrupters of  morals1 such as the     
,nicolaitanes2 so that there is not the 
slightest  necessity to think of ,paul  
and his dispute about ,jewish rites1 to 
make  the words of the ,apocalypse      
intelligible4      #bh ,paul was not    
living when ,john wrote the ,apocalypse4
    ,clement's letter1 written from     
,rome to the ,corinthians1 probably     
about  the year #id or #ie1 supplies us 
with evidence as to the nature of the   
difference between ,peter and ,paul1 as 
well as proves the epistle to be        
genuine4 ,he says1 ,do take up the      
writings of the blessed apostle4  ,what 
did he say to you in the beginning of   
the ,gospel8 ,truly1 by  ,divine        
,inspiration1 he gave you directions    
concerning himself and  ,peter and      
,apollos1 because even then ye were     
splitting into parties4  ,but your party
 spirit at that time had less evil in   
it1 because it was  exercised in favour 
of apostles of eminent holiness1 and of 
one much  approved of by them4 ,but now 

consider who they are that have         
subverted you4 ,these are shameful      
things1 brethren1 very shameful1  that  
the ancient and flourishing ,church of  
,corinth have quarrelled  with their    
pastors1 from a weak partiality for one 
or two persons4    ,clement contrasts   
the eminent holy ,peter and ,paul and   
,apollos with the  persons who were     
subverting them1 and the latter were    
undoubtedly the  sort of false apostles 
that ,john alludes to in the            
,apocalypse4 ,the  evidence of the      
,second ,epistle of ,peter is not to be 
set aside because  our author includes  
it among the questionable writings of   
the ,new  ,testament2 and ,peter there  
speaks of ,paul as our beloved brother1 
who  according to the wisdom given him  
hath written unto you4#bi ,it is  not   
convenient for such critics to allow the
 letter to be genuine1 on  account of   
this very passage4 ,but there is ample  
proof1 from internal  evidence1 as shown
 by ,dr4 ,macnight1 ,dr4 ,blackwell1 and

 ,dr4 ,a4 ,clarke1  that it is a genuine
 letter4 ,what a weak case he must have 
in hand who  has to resort to such means
 to defend it6      #bi #b ,pet4 iii4   
#ae4    ,the foregone conclusion that   
miracles are incredible1 hampers all the
  investigations of these ,german       
scholars1 and compels them to resort to 
all sorts of conjectures and devices to 
account for things which1 on  the basis 
of ,evangelical views1 are neither      
mysterious nor  inharmonious4 ,if it be 
true of ,germany that her ablest        
theologians are  now exploding such     
fallacies1 the argument of our author is
 one1 the  force of which is expended1 a
 gun brought into the field of battle   
when the fight is nearly over4 ,it may  
do some damage1 but cannot  affect      
materially the issue of the contest4    
,the outspokenness of the  sceptics has 
roused the believers1 and the result1 we
 cannot doubt1  will be for the         
furtherance of the gospel4    ,the      
natural and spiritual miracles of the   

sacred narrative are only  the notes of 
a higher harmony which resound          
throughout the discords of  earthly     
history4 ,to our dull sense indeed they 
may seem disconnected1  but the more we 
listen the more we perceive a connected 
law of higher  euphony1 now presaging1  
and finally bringing about the solution 
of all  dissonance into an eternal      
harmony4 ,surely then a believer may    
look  down with pity upon the spirit of 
the age and its declaration1 that  the  
harmony of the ,kosmos is destroyed by  
the miracles of the ,bible4             
7,beyschlag47    ,the ,shepherd of      
,hermas is next alluded to1 but as it is
 not  pretended that it contains any    
quotation from1 or reference to1 any    
passage of the ,old or ,new ,testament1 
it is simply a negative witness  in this
 case4 ,it is found in the ,codex       
,sinaiticus1 after the ,epistle  of     
,barnabas4 ,the following is ,mosheim's 
description of the work3 ,the  book     
entitled the ',shepherd of ,hermas' 7so 

called because an angel is  the leading 
character in the drama7 was composed in 
the second  century1 by ,hermas1 the    
brother of ,pius1 the ,roman bishop4    
,the writer1  if he was indeed sane1    
deemed it proper to forge dialogues held
 with  ,god and angels1 in order to     
insinuate what he regarded as salutary  
truths more effectually into the minds  
of his readers4 ,but his  celestial     
spirits talk more insipidly than our    
scavengers and  porters4    ,what a     
contrast between the writings of the    
,new ,testament and those  left out of  
the canon does such a book as this      
,shepherd of ,hermas  exhibit6 ,bunsen  
thus alludes to it3 ,that good but dull 
novel which  ,niebuhr used to say he    
pitied the ,athenian ,christians for    
being  obliged to hear read in their    
meetings4 ,from the very dawn of        
,catholic literature1 beginning with    
',hermas the ,shepherd1' it had been    
the object of the ,christian writers to 
render the ,greek and ,roman  mind1 by  

degrees1 independent of the heathen     
philosophers1 and to  create a ,catholic
 literature and library1 more           
particularly for the  use of children   
and catechumens4#cj      #cj ,hippolytus
 and his ,age1 vol4 i41 #cae4           
,failing to distinguish between what was
 intended to be true1 what was  meant to
 be fiction1 and what was fraudulently  
spurious1 theologians  have often been  
misled1 and important doctrines have    
been thereby  perverted4                
,,chapter ,,iii4    ,,the ,,synoptic    
,,gospels--,,continued4      ,i cannot  
dispense with miracles as historical    
explanations of  certain indubitable    
historical facts4 ,i do not find that   
they make  rents in history1 but by     
their aid alone am ,i able to get over  
its  gaping chasms4      ,rothe4        
,,chapter ,,iii4    ,,the ,,synoptic    
,,gospels--,,continued4         ,,the   
,,epistles ,,of ,,ignatius--,,the       
,,epistle ,,of ,,polycarp--,,justin     
,,martyr--,,hegesippus--,,papias--,,the 

,,clementines--,,the ,,epistle ,,to     
,,diognetus4      ,next our author      
examines quotations in the ,epistles of 
,ignatius1  though he says they really  
appertain to a very much later period1  
for  they are all pronounced1 by a large
 mass of critics1 spurious              
compositions4 ,he suffered martyrdom1 it
 is said1 on the #bjth ,december1       
,a4,d4 #aae1 when he was condemned to be
 cast to wild beasts in the             
amphitheatre1 not at ,rome1 but at      
,antioch1 in consequence of the         
fanatical excitement produced by the    
earthquake which took place on  the     
thirteenth of that month4#ca ,if any of 
his fifteen letters1 says  our author1  
could be accepted as genuine1 the       
references to them  might be important4 
,dr4 ,mosheim says his whole epistles   
are extremely  dubious4 ,the shorter of 
the two version of ,ignatius is1        
however1  generally allowed to be       
genuine4 ,tischendorf says its          
genuineness is  now generally admitted4 

,in it we find1 ,what would a man be    
profited  if he should gain the whole   
world and lose his own soul8 which of   
course is a quotation from ,matt4 xvi4  
#bf4      #ca ,while ,trajan was on his 
,parthian expedition1 and spent the     
winter    at ,antioch4 7,see ,davidson's
 ,introduction to the ,new ,testament1  
p4    #cgj47    ,the next document      
mentioned is the ,epistle of ,polycarp  
to the  ,philippians1 who1 ,irenus says1
 was in his youth a disciple of the     
,apostle ,john4 ,he was ,bishop of      
,smyrna1 and ended his life by          
martyrdom1 ,a4,d4 #afg4 ,irenus knew    
,polycarp personally4 ,it is said that  
the epistle was written before ,a4,d4   
#abj4 ,our author ascribes it to a      
later date1 and says that there are     
potent reasons for considering it       
spurious4 ,as1 however1 ,irenus1        
,polycarp's disciple1 believed it to be 
genuine1 we shall take the liberty of   
differing from our author1 and  of      
believing it to be so4 ,the epistle     

contains the following3  ,remembering   
what the ,lord said1 teaching3 ,judge   
not1 that ye be not  judged2 forgive1   
and it shall be forgiven you2 be        
pitiful1 that ye may  be pitied2 with   
what measure you mete it shall be       
measured to you  again2 and that blessed
 are the poor1 and those that are       
persecuted  for righteousness' sake1 for
 theirs is the kingdom of ,god4 ,also3  
,beseeching in our prayers the          
all-seeing ,god not to lead us into     
temptation1 as the ,lord said1 ,the     
spirit indeed is willing1 but the  flesh
 is weak4 ,also3 ,if1 therefore1 we pray
 the ,lord that he may  forgive us1 we  
ought also ourselves to forgive4    ,our
 author demurs to these being quotations
 from our ,gospels1 and says  they might
 have been from orally current accounts 
of the ,sermon on the  ,mount1 or from  
many of the records of the teaching of  
,jesus in  circulation4    ,hegisippus  
is the next early writer referred to4   
,he made use of the  ,gospel according  

to the ,hebrews4 ,jerome says           
7confirming ,eusebius7  that the ,gospel
 according to the ,hebrews is written in
 the ,chaldaic  and ,syriac             
7,syro-,chaldaic7 language1 but with    
,hebrew characters4    ,we have1 says   
our author1 direct intimation that      
,hegesippus made use  of the ,gospel    
according to the ,hebrews4 ,he was one  
of the  contemporaries of ,justin--a    
,palestinian ,jewish ,christian4 ,in    
order to  make himself thoroughly       
acquainted with the state of the        
,church1 he  travelled widely1 and came 
to ,rome when ,anicitus was bishop4     
,subsequently he wrote a work of        
historical memoirs in five books1  and  
thus became the first ecclesiastical    
historian of ,christianity4  ,this work 
is lost1 but portions have been         
preserved by ,eusebius1  and one other  
fragment is also extant4 ,it must have  
been written  after the succession of   
,eleutherius to the ,roman bishopric    
7,a4,d4  #agg-aic71 as that event is    

mentioned in the book4    ,the testimony
 of ,hegesippus is of great value1 not  
only as a man  born near the primitive  
,christian tradition1 but also as that  
of an  intelligent traveller amongst    
many ,christian communities 7p4 #dcj74  
,hegesippus says1 in the fifth book of  
his ,memoirs1 that these words  7',good 
things prepared for the righteous       
neither eye hath seen nor ear  heard1   
nor have they entered into the heart of 
man1' from #a ,cor4 ii4  #i7 are vainly 
spoken1 and that those who say these    
things give the lie  to the ,divine     
writings and to the ,lord saying1       
',blessed are your eyes  that see1 and  
your ears that hear1' c4 ,this fragment 
is preserved by  ,stephanus ,gobarus1 a 
learned monophysite of the sixth        
century4    ,nothing is more certain1   
says our author1 than the fact that1 in 
spite of the opportunities for          
collecting information afforded him by  
his travels through so many ,christian  
communities1 for the express  purpose of

 such inquiry1 ,hegesippus did not find 
any ,new ,testament  ,canon1 or1 that   
such a rule of faith did not exist in   
,rome in ,a4,d4 #afj  and #agj4    ,i   
ask1 ,how in the world can our author be
 certain of this1 when only  portions of
 ,hegesippus are extant8 ,this applies  
generally to his  argument that the     
silence of the early writers is of as   
much  importance as their supposed      
allusions to the ,gospels4 ,such a mode 
of  reasoning is aptly commented upon by
 the ,rev4 ,kentish ,bache1 in his      
letter to ,dr4 ,davidson on the ,fourth 
,gospel4 ,he says3 ,when but small      
portions of a work have been preserved  
to our use1 it is no wonder  that these 
portions should make no mention of many 
circumstances  interesting and          
important1 which the writer must        
certainly have known  and told of4 ,if  
,i tear a few leaves from the middle of 
my ,english  ,history book1 ,i shall    
find on them 7the few leaves7 no record 
of the  ,norman ,conquest or of the     

,battle of ,waterloo4 ,would it thence  
be a  fair conclusion that these events 
are unhistorical and fictitious8        
,papias is next referred to4 ,he was    
,bishop of ,hierapolis1 in ,phrygia1  in
 the first half of the second century1  
and is said to have suffered  martyrdom 
under ,marcus ,aurelius1 about ,a4,d4   
#afj-afg4 ,about the middle  of the     
second century he wrote a work in five  
books1 called1  ,exposition of the      
,lord's ,oracles1 which is lost1        
excepting a few  fragments preserved by 
,eusebius and ,irenus4 ,we have the     
preface to  his book1 which states3 ,i  
shall not hesitate to set beside my     
interpretations all that ,i rightly     
learnt from the ,presbyters1 and        
rightly remembered1 earnestly testifying
 to its truth4 ,for ,i have not1  like  
the multitude1 delighted in those who   
spoke much1 but in those  who taught the
 truth2 nor in those who recorded alien 
commandments1  but in those who recall  
those delivered by the ,lord to faith1  

and  which come from truth itself4 ,if  
it happened that any one came who had   
followed the ,presbyters1 ,i inquired   
minutely after the words of the         
,presbyters--what ,andrew or what ,peter
 said1 or what ,philip or what  ,thomas 
or ,james1 or what ,john or ,matthew1 or
 what any other of the  disciples of the
 ,lord1 and what ,aristion and the      
,presbyter ,john1 the  disciples of the 
,lord1 say2 for ,i held that what was to
 be derived  from books was not so      
profitable as that from the living and  
abiding  voice4 ,it is clear 7says our  
author7 from this that even if ,papias  
knew any of our ,gospels1 he attached   
little or no value to them1 and  that he
 knew absolutely nothing of the         
,canonical ,scriptures of the ,new      
,testament 7p4 #dde74    ,i remark that 
it is far from clear that he attached no
 value to our  ,gospels from anything he
 says in the fragments extant1 and of   
course  we know nothing of those        
portions that are lost4 ,we know that he

 was  making a book1 consisting of what 
he could gather from tradition about    
the truth1 to set beside his            
interpretations about the  commandments 
delivered by the ,lord to faith4 ,there 
were ,gospel  writings in circulation1  
and he was supplementing what they      
recorded4  ,there is positively no      
evidence to make us think that our      
present  ,gospels were unknown to him4  
,he does not1 in the fragments we have1 
mention ,paul's writings1 nor the       
,gospel of ,luke1 nor the ,fourth       
,gospel1 but he does allude to a book by
 ,matthew and another by ,mark1  and    
,eusebius tells us that ,papias makes   
use of passages taken from  ,peter's    
first epistle and ,john's first epistle4
 ,so1 on the whole1 the  testimony of   
,papias1 instead of being against is in 
favour of the  ,synoptics1 and also of  
the ,fourth ,gospel2 for the silence    
inference  applies no more to it than it
 does to ,paul and ,luke's writings1 and
  the statement of ,eusebius about      

,john's ,epistle is not to be set aside1
  for if ,john wrote it1 it will be     
allowed he wrote the ,gospel4 ,his      
evidence respecting ,mark is important1 
for the fragments contain a  statement  
that ,mark recorded what fell from      
,peter1 writing  accurately1 and taking 
especial care neither to omit nor to    
misrepresent anything2 and ,papias says 
that ,peter preached with a  view to the
 benefit of his hearers1 and not to give
 a history of  ,christ's discourses4    
,our author's inference is that it is   
some other  person of the name of ,mark 
that is connected with the ,second      
,gospel1  and not the ,mark that ,papias
 refers to4 ,this is very far-fetched   
and  improbable1 for the description    
tallies well with our ,second ,gospel1  
and quite admits of the supposition that
 ,mark had every opportunity of         
obtaining from eye-witnesses the        
historical materials of his ,gospel4    
,no one supposes that every statement in
 the book emanated from ,peter's        

discourses4    ,papias is the only early
 writer that our author acknowledges    
furnishes  any evidence in favour of the
 ,synoptic ,gospels4 ,he cannot deny    
that  he records that ,matthew composed 
discourses of the ,lord in the ,hebrew  
tongue1 but he says that totally        
excludes the claim of our ,greek        
,gospel to apostolic origin4 ,the       
boldness of this assertion can only  be 
properly met by an equally explicit     
denial that it does anything of  the    
kind4 ,if the translation be a faithful 
one from a ,hebrew version1  it is of   
course entitled to the epithet apostolic
 if the original  possessed it4 ,our    
author must have some peculiar notions  
about verbal  inspiration if this be the
 rule he lays down4 ,but he altogether  
overlooks the supposition that          
,matthew's ,gospel was not originally   
written in ,hebrew1 notwithstanding this
 statement of ,papias4    ,tischendorf1 
in his book issued by the ,tract        
,society1 entitled1 ,when  were our     

,gospels ,written8 maintains that the   
assertion of ,papias  rests on a        
misunderstanding1 and he briefly states 
his reasons for  this view4 ,he says3   
,this ,hebrew text must have been lost  
very early1  for not one even of the    
very oldest ,church fathers had ever    
seen or  used it4 ,there were two       
parties among the ,judaisers--the one   
the  ,nazarenes and the other the       
,ebionites4 ,each of these parties used 
a  gospel according to ,matthew1 the one
 party using a ,greek and the other     
party a ,hebrew text4 ,that they did not
 scruple to tamper with the  text1 to   
suit their creed1 is probable from their
 very sectarian  spirit4 ,the text1 as  
we have certain means of proving1 rested
 upon our  received text of ,matthew1   
with1 however1 occasional departures1 to
  suit their arbitrary views4 ,when then
 it was reported1 in later times1  that 
these ,nazarenes1 who were one of the   
earliest ,christian sects1  possessed a 
,hebrew version of ,matthew1 what was   

more natural than that  some person or  
other1 thus falling in with the         
pretensions of this  sect1 should say   
that ,matthew was originally written in 
,hebrew1 and  that the ,greek was only a
 version from it8 ,how far these two    
texts  differed from each other no one  
cared to inquire2 and with such         
separatists who withdrew themselves to  
the shores of the ,dead ,sea1 it  would 
not have been easy to have attempted it4
    ,jerome1 who knew ,hebrew1 as other 
,latin and ,greek fathers did not1      
obtained in the fourth century a copy of
 this ,hebrew ,gospel of the            
,nazarenes1 and at once asserted that he
 had found the original4 ,but  when he  
looked more closely into the matter1 he 
confined himself to  the statement that 
many supposed this ,hebrew text was the 
original of  ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,he    
translated it into ,latin and ,greek1   
and added a  few observations of his own
 on it4 ,from these observations of     
,jerome1  as well as from other         

fragments1 we must conclude that this   
notion of  ,papias cannot be            
substantiated2 but1 on the contrary1    
this ,hebrew has  been drawn from the   
,greek text1 and disfigured moreover    
here and there  with certain arbitrary  
changes4 ,the same is applicable to a   
,greek text  of the ,hebrew ,gospel in  
use among the ,ebionites4 ,this text1   
from the  fact that it was in ,greek1   
was better known to the ,church than the
  ,hebrew version of the ,nazarenes2 but
 it was always regarded1 from the       
earliest times1 as only another text of 
,matthew's ,gospel4    ,the references  
to ,justin ,martyr occupy nearly one    
hundred and fifty  pages of the work4   
,he was one of the most learned and one 
of the  earliest writers of the ,church 
not long after the apostles4 ,his       
conversion took place about the year    
#acb1 and his martyrdom1 ,a4,d4 #afe4   
,in his second ,apology1 ,a4,d4 #aci1   
and in his ,dialogue with ,tryphon  the 
,jew1 are many quotations of passages   

found in the ,gospels4 ,he  quotes from 
all the four ,evangelists1 and our      
author's elaborate  attempt to prove the
 contrary is certainly not successful4  
,his  objection1 based on slight        
discrepancies in the words while the    
sense  is identical1 is frivolous in the
 extreme4 ,supposing there were in      
,justin's hands a primitive work which  
supplied the passages1 and that  work   
was embodied in the canonical           
compilation1 they can be truthfully     
said to be quotations from the latter4  
,the objection to his quotations  on the
 grounds that they are not verbatim1 is 
neutralized by the fact  that neither   
are his quotations from the ,old        
,testament always exact4    ,it has been
 shown that if ,justin did not quote    
from our ,gospels1  there must have been
 in his hands1 in the second century1 a 
variety of  accounts of ,christ's life1 
to which he1 a leading ,christian       
apologist1  attached the greatest       
importance2 and yet1 in the course of   

the few  following years1 those accounts
 must have disappeared1 and four        
others1 of which this eminent ,christian
 apologist knew nothing1 must  have     
taken their place4 ,this would have been
 what ,canon ,westcott  justly calls a  
'revolution1' for it would have1 in a   
single  generation1 entirely changed the
 records of the life of ,christ         
publicly used by the ,christians4#cb    
#cb ,literary ,world1 ,oct4 #bc1 #ahgd4 
,justin quotes from a book entitled the 
,memoirs1 which he says are  called     
,gospels1 and our author tries to make  
out that the passage  quoted is an      
interpolation4 ,it is not the only      
instance where the  wish1 and not the   
proof1 is father to the thought4    ,in 
,justin's work1 the ,apology1 occur the 
words1 ,and thou shalt call  his name   
,jesus1 for he shall save his people    
from their sins2 which  are found in the
 apocryphal ,gospel of ,james1 as said  
to the ,virgin  ,mary1 while in         
,matthew's ,gospel they are spoken to   

,joseph4 ,it is urged  that ,justin     
must1 therefore1 have quoted them from a
 lost ,gospel2 but  why should it be    
supposed so when they are in the        
apocryphal ,gospel of  ,james1 which1   
,origen says1 was everywhere known about
 the end of the  second century1 and    
which1 there is good ground for         
believing1 was  written in the early    
part of that century8    ,a few other   
passages in ,justin's work1 which are   
not found in our  ,gospels1 may be      
accounted for by supposing them to be   
quotations  either from lost ,gospels1  
genuine or apocryphal1 or tradition may 
have  supplied them4 ,there is no       
certain inference to be arrived at4     
,justin tells us in his first ,apology  
7,a4,d4 #aci71 that the memoirs of  the 
apostles called evangels were read after
 the prophets every  ,lord's ,day in the
 assemblies of the ,christians4    ,this
 must have reference to the writings    
which alone1 a few years  later1 were   
universally known as the ,four ,gospels1

 or the ,acts of the  ,apostles4    ,the
 second volume of the work opens with an
 examination of the  evidence furnished 
by the apocryphal religious romance     
generally known  by the name of ',the   
,clementines1' which includes the       
,homilies1 the  ,recognitions1 and a    
so-called ,epitome--the ,homilies and   
,recognitions  being1 he says1 the one  
merely a version of the other1 and the  
,epitome a blending of the other two4   
,as there are in the ,clementine        
,homilies upwards of a hundred          
quotations of expressions of ,jesus1 or 
references to ,his history 7not less    
than fifty passages from the  ,sermon on
 the ,mount71 it is important to        
ascertain1 if possible1 when  they were 
written1 and from what writings they    
quote4 ,the date cannot  be determined4 
,the range of probability is from the   
middle of the  second century4 ,if much 
later1 the inquiry does not amount to   
much1  because we know1 from ample      
evidence1 such as that of ,irenus1 that 

the ,four ,gospels as we have them were 
in existence1 and read in the           
,churches1 in the middle of the second  
century4 ,we presume1 therefore1  our   
author takes an early date for granted1 
or he would not have  occupied forty    
pages in their examination4    ,the     
first quotation which1 he says1 agrees  
with a passage in our  ,synoptics1      
occurs in the third ,homily1 p4 #eb3    
,and he cried1 saying1  ,come unto me   
all ye that are weary2 which agrees with
 ,matt4 xi4 #bh4  ,because the quotation
 is not continued1 but the following    
words are an  explanation of what ,come 
unto me1 c41 means--that is1 who are    
seeking truth1 and not finding it1--we  
are to deem it evident that  so short   
and fragmentary a phrase cannot prove   
anything4 ,i exclaim1  ,indeed6 ,not in 
a book that contains a hundred          
references to the words  of ,jesus6     
,not1 considering that they are         
especially the words of  ,jesus1 that no
 one else so said to the weary1 ,come   

unto me6 ,most  readers will surely     
think the contrary should be inferred6  
,among the quotations are words         
resembling the text of ,matthew xxv4    
#bf-cj3 ,thou wicked and slothful       
servant3 thou oughtest to have put  out 
my money with the exchangers1 and at my 
coming ,i should have  exacted mine     
own4#cc ,if this were the only reference
 to the ,gospels  as we have them1 the  
quotation is sufficiently near to make  
the  inference certain that such        
writings1 in some shape1 must have been 
in  existence when the ,clementine      
,homilies were written4 ,this our author
  acknowledges1 but he says 7vol4 ii4 p4
 #ag73 ,if the variations were  the     
exception among a mass of quotations    
perfectly agreeing with the  parallels  
in our ,gospels1 it might be            
exaggeration to base upon such          
divergences a conclusion that they were 
derived from a different  source4 ,the  
variations being the rule1 instead of   
the exception1  these1 however slight1  

become evidence of the use of a         
different  ,gospel from ours4#cd        
#cc ,hom4 iii4 #fa4      #cd ,the       
',recognitions of ,clemens1' which      
differ little from    ,clementina1 are  
the witty and agreeable productions of  
an ,alexandrian    ,jew1 well versed in 
philosophy1 written in the third        
century4--,dr4    ,mosheim4    ,i       
remark1 supposing this be so1 that the  
author of these ,homilies had1  in the  
year #afj1 other ,gospel manuscripts    
before him1 it is not  pretended that   
our ,gospels contain all that was known 
of the sayings  of ,jesus1 and all the  
events of ,his public ministry4 ,we are 
told in  the ,fourth ,gospel3 ,there are
 also many other things which ,jesus    
did1  the which1 if they should be      
written every one1 ,i suppose that even 
the world itself could not contain the  
books that should be  written4#ce ,if   
the author of the ,fourth ,gospel did   
not include many  things which he knew  
had been previously written about1 why  

should we  be surprised to find the     
authors of the ,synoptic ,gospels record
 only  portions8      #ce ,john xx4 #be4
    ,we know that ,paul wrote an epistle
 to the ,church at ,laodicea1 which is  
not preserved to us4 ,we hold that ,paul
 was as much an inspired writer  as any 
of the apostles1 and instead of making  
all sorts of  difficulties about the    
books we have1 we ought to be grateful  
that  they are extant4 ,we read in      
,paul's ,epistle to the ,colossians1 iv4
 #af3  ,and when this epistle is read   
among you1 cause that it be read also   
in the ,church of the ,laodiceans2 and  
that ye likewise read the epistle  from 
,laodicea4    ,i wonder whether our     
author has an objection to the          
genuineness of the  ,epistle to the     
,colossians1 because ,epictetus1 who was
 born at  ,hierapolis about ,a4,d4 #ej1 
which was within a few miles of ,colosse
 and  ,laodicea1 and who would be likely
 to know1 at that time1 what was  there 
going on1 does not refer to ,paul and   

the ,churches there8    ,but it is      
useless to disprove the assertion that  
there are no  quotations from the       
,gospels1 for we are met at every turn  
with the  objection that those specified
 are probably quotations from the       
numerous lost ,gospels known to have    
been in circulation4 ,he says3 ,the     
great mass of intelligent critics are   
agreed that our ,synoptics have  assumed
 their present form only after repeated 
modifications by  various editors of    
earlier evangelical works4 ,the         
primitive ,gospels  have entirely       
disappeared1 supplanted by the later and
 more amplified  versions 7p4 #dei74    
,the first two ,synoptics bear no       
author's name1  because they are not the
 work of any one man1 but the collected 
materials of many4 ,the third only      
pretends to be a compilation for        
private use1 and the fourth bears no    
simple signature1 because it is  neither
 the work of an apostle nor of an       
eye-witness of the events it  records   

7p4 #dja74 ,i remark1 if ,luke's ,gospel
 does only pretend to be  for private   
use1 does that affect its value8 ,if    
,matthew wrote at all1  and our author  
acknowledges he did in ,hebrew1 his work
 would be likely  to be translated into 
,greek1 either by himself or some one   
else1 and  many copies circulated4      
,supposing the original in ,hebrew to be
 lost1  it is not probable the ,greek   
copies could be all collected from      
various places1 and all altered and     
supplemented4 ,how could any one  do    
this8 ,he might write and issue a new   
version1 but he could not  suppress the 
original one unless all the existing    
copies were under  his own control4 ,as 
we have a certain work preserved1 and no
 other1  pretending to be ,matthew's1 it
 is highly probable that what ,matthew  
contributed to the ,church is that      
,gospel4 ,a fictitious one would be     
less likely to be preserved than a real 
one1 though we are asked to  believe the
 contrary4 ,our author suggests that if 

we had the original  writings we should 
find them minus the miracles1 which is  
altogether  inconsistent with what he   
has said about the prevalence of        
miraculous  notions among the ,jews at  
the time4 ,at any rate1 if the books in 
circulation did not relate miracles1    
they would not be in harmony with  the  
gospel preached by ,paul1 and believed  
by the first ,christians4  ,supposing   
that there were1 as ,luke intimates1 and
 as our author  asserts1 many original  
writings1 what more likely than that    
,matthew  should collect some of them1  
and embody them1 with his own record1 in
  one book1 under his own name8 ,it is  
quite true that we meet with  references
 to apostolic writings under other      
titles than those in the  ,new          
,testament3 we read of1--    ,the       
,gospel according to the ,hebrews4      
,the ,gospel according to the           
,egyptians4    ,the ,memoirs of the     
,apostles4    ,the ,gospel of ,matthew  
in ,hebrew4    ,the ,gospel of the      

,lord4    ,the ,discourses of ,peter4   
,the ,collection of ,discourses4        
,although we do not know how these were 
embodied in our ,new ,testament         
,scriptures1 it is probable that they   
were in some way included1 or the       
copies of the present ,gospels may not  
all have uniformly borne the  same      
titles as we know them by4 ,in our day  
it is not usual for an  author's name to
 appear in the body of his work1 and    
often a  title-page gives more than one 
title4#cf ,how few persons can give the 
exact title of the book known as        
,butler's ,analogy4 ,the value of a     
book does not depend essentially upon   
the person who wrote it4 ,we do  not    
know who wrote the ,book of ,job1 many  
of the ,psalms1 the ,epistle to  the    
,hebrews1 and other portions of the     
,bible1 but it would be unwise  to      
reject their teaching on that account4  
#cf ,the ',recognitions' are conveyed to
 us by the ancients under    different  
titles4 ,they are sometimes styled ',st4

 ,clemens's ,acts1'    ',history        
,chronicle2' sometimes ',st4 ,peter's   
,acts1' ',itinerary    ,periods1'       
',dialogues with ,apion1' all which are 
unquestionably but    different         
inscriptions1 or it may be parcels1 of  
the same book4--,dr4    ,cave's         
,apostalici1 p4 #eh4    ,our author     
says3 ,no reason whatever has been shown
 for accepting the  testimony of these  
,gospels as sufficient to establish the 
reality of  miracles 7p4 #bdi74 ,i      
remark1 the question is1 ,do they show  
such  insufficient testimony as to      
warrant the conclusion that the general 
evidence based on a great variety of    
proofs is not to be accepted8    ,the   
,epistle to ,diognetus is a short       
composition1 which has been  ascribed to
 ,justin ,martyr1 but its authorship is 
uncertain1 and the  date of its         
composition4 ,it is not quoted or       
mentioned by any ancient  writer4 ,the  
two concluding chapters are supposed to 
have been written  by a different hand4 

,to the first quarter of the second half
 to the  end of that century the date is
 variously assigned4 ,it is written in  
pure ,greek1 and is elegant in style4   
,bunsen1 in his valuable book1          
,hippolytus and his ,age1 asserts that  
the epistle is certainly the  work of a 
contemporary of ,justin the ,martyr2    
that he believes he has  proved that the
 first part is a portion of the lost    
early ,letter of  ,marcion1 of which    
,tertullian speaks2 and that the very   
beautiful and  justly admired second    
fragment1 which in our editions of      
,justin's  works is given at the end of 
that ,patristic gem1 the ,epistle to    
,diognetus1#cg does not belong to that  
letter1 but is the conclusion  of the   
great work1 in ten books1 by            
,hippolytus1 ,the ,refutation of all    
,heresies4 ,our author1 in the eighteen 
pages devoted to the ,epistle to        
,diognetus1 says nothing of this1       
although it is both important and       
interesting4 ,he says the supposed      

allusions in the ,fourth ,gospel may  be
 all referable to ,paul's epistles1 that
 the date and author are  unknown1 and  
that the letter is of no evidential     
value4 ,his two brief  allusions to     
,bunsen's work show that the ignoring of
 that eminent  man's opinion was not    
unintentional2 while the absence of any 
reference to ,bunsen's elaborate proof  
that ,hippolytus wrote the  ,refutation1
 is also significant4      #cg          
,hippolytus and his ,age1 vol4 i4 #ahg4 
,,chapter ,,iv4    ,,the ,,synoptic     
,,gospels--,,continued4      ,it remains
 a possibility that ,christ actually was
 what ,he supposed  ,himself to be4     
,john ,stuart ,mill4          ,,chapter 
,,iv4    ,,the ,,synoptic               
,,gospels--,,continued4                 
,,basilides--,,valentinus--,,marcion--,,
tatian--,,dionysius ,,of                
,,corinth--,,melito ,,of                
,,sardis--,,claudius                    
,,apollinaris--,,athenagoras--,,epistle 
,,of ,,vienne ,,and                     

,,lyons--,,ptolem,,us1 ,,heracleon1     
,,celsus--,,canon ,,of ,,muratori4      
,our author says of ,basilides1 ,he was 
founder of a system of  ,gnosticism1 who
 lived at ,alexandria about the year    
#abe4 ,with the  exception of a very few
 brief fragments1 none of his writings  
have  been preserved1 and all our       
information regarding them is derived   
from  writers opposed to him4 ,eusebius 
states that ,agrippa ,castor1 who had   
written a refutation of the doctrines of
 ,basilides1 ',says that he had         
composed twenty-four books upon the     
gospel4' ,this is interpreted by        
,tischendorf to imply that the work was 
a commentary upon our four  ,gospels1 a 
conclusion the audacity of which can    
scarcely be exceeded  7p4 #db74 ,i      
remark that by the gospel would be meant
 the gospel  which was preached by the  
apostles1 and ,tischendorf is not far   
wrong  in supposing that the written    
records of it in the hands of the first 
,christians was the subject of the      

commentary4 ,our author has certainly   
not proved the contrary4 ,he says3 ,we  
know that ,basilides made use of  a     
,gospel1 written by himself it is said1 
but certainly called after  his own     
name2 444 but the fragments of that work
 which are extant are  of a character   
which precludes the possibility of the  
work being  considered a ,gospel4       
,neander affirmed the ,gospel of        
,basilides to be  the ,gospel according 
to the ,hebrews4 ,i remark that that is 
not only  probable1 but that the ,gospel
 to the ,hebrews may have been the      
,hebrew  translation of the ,greek      
,gospel of ,matthew1 with its additions 
and  modifications1 to suit the ,jewish 
,nazarene sect1 who1 we know1 had a     
,hebrew text of their own1 which they   
did not hesitate to alter and  adapt to 
their own views4 ,basilides1 says our   
author1 expressly states  that he       
received his knowledge of the truth from
 ,glaucis1 the  interpreter of ,peter1  
whose disciple he claimed to be4        

,basilides  also claimed to have        
received from a certain ,matthias the   
report of  private discourses which he  
had heard from the ,saviour for his     
special instruction4 ,canon ,westcott   
writes3 ,since ,basilides lived on  the 
verge of the apostolic times1 it is not 
surprising that he made  use of other   
sources of ,christian doctrine besides  
the canonical  books4 ,the belief in    
,divine inspiration was still fresh and 
real4#ch  ,our author says3 ,it is      
apparent1 however1 that ,basilides1 in  
basing  his doctrine on these apocryphal
 books as inspired1 and upon  tradition1
 and in having a special ,gospel called 
after his own name1  ignores the        
canonical ,gospels1 offers no evidence  
for their existence1  but proves that he
 did not recognise any such works as of 
authority4  ,i remark1 the question is  
not their authority1 but1 ,did they     
exist8  ,basilides wrote a book1 called 
it a ,gospel1 or commentary of the      
,gospel1 and made as much use as suited 

his heretical purpose of the  canonical 
records1 of tradition1 and of other     
books4 ,this seems to be  what we can   
arrive at4 ,hippolytus1 writing of the  
,basilideans and  describing their      
doctrines1 uses the singular pronoun    
he--he says1  in a passage of which our 
author gives an unintelligible          
translation4  ,this pronoun is an       
inconvenient witness4 ,our author wants 
it to be  they1 in order that the       
disciples of ,basilides living at a     
later  period1 when the ,gospels were   
generally recognised1 may be meant1 and 
not ,basilides1 who lived ,a4,d4 #abe4  
,hippolytus has a sentence of           
,basilides1 which our author translates 
as follows3--,jesus1 however1  was      
generated according to these1 as we have
 already said4 ,but when  the generation
 which has already been declared had    
taken place1 all  things regarding the  
,saviour1 according to them1 occurred in
 a  similar way as they have been       
written in the ,gospel4 ,this means that

  the things referring to the           
,incarnation were as written in the     
,gospel1 not as preached1 but as        
written2 and if ,basilides1 as the      
founder of the sect1 is referred to1 the
 statement testifies to the  existence  
of the ,gospels in the year #abe1 and   
the doctrine of the  ,incarnation being 
in them4 ,but our author says the       
statement is not  made in connection    
with ,basilides1 but his followers2 that
 it is made  about ,a4,d4 #bbe1 by      
,hippolytus1 and affords no proof that  
either  ,basilides or his followers used
 the ,gospels or admitted their         
authority4 ,the exclusive use1 by any   
one1 of the ,gospel according to  the   
,hebrews1 for instance1 would be        
perfectly consistent with the  statement
 7p4 #dh74 ,no one who considers what is
 known of that  ,gospel1 or who thinks  
of the use made of it in the first half 
of the  second century by perfectly     
orthodox ,fathers1 before we hear       
anything  of our ,gospels1 can doubt    

this 7p4 #dh74 ,i remark1 that those who
  adopt ,tischendorf's view1 that       
,matthew was written in ,greek1 and a   
corrupted version in ,hebrew1 used in   
certain countries1 will not have  to    
resort to any such explanation as our   
author suggests4 ,his  examination in   
detail of the several quotations is     
important1 because  it exhibits his want
 of appreciation of the evidence they   
afford4 ,the  first passage ,tischendorf
 points out is found in the ,stromata of
  ,clement of ,alexandria1 and it is    
certainly from our ,gospel of           
,matthew1#ci however that work may have 
been compiled 7for it is not  necessary 
to insist that no other records than    
,matthew's own are  included in the book
 which1 we contend1 was at very early   
date read in  the ,churches1 and is what
 we now have74 ,they say the ,lord      
answered1  ,all men cannot receive this 
saying4 ,for there are eunuchs who are  
indeed from birth1 but others from      
necessity4#dj ,our author says  this    

passage in its affinity to1 and material
 variation from1 our  ,first ,gospel1   
might be quoted as evidence for the use 
of the ,gospel  according to the        
,hebrews1 but it is simply preposterous 
to point to it  as evidence for the use 
of ,matthew4 ,apologists 444 seem       
altogether to  ignore the history of the
 creation of written ,gospels1 and to   
forget  the very existence of the  of   
,luke4 ,we value his  acknowledgment1   
and find no difficulty1 notwithstanding 
the silence of  some apologists1 in     
reconciling our belief in the four      
,gospels with  the facts or             
probabilities of what can be ascertained
 as to their  creation4 ,we allow that  
the word ,luke uses 77 refers  to many1 
which is consistent with the idea that  
many committed to  writing what they    
knew1 and that their records were       
embodied in the  ,synoptic ,gospels4    
#ch ,on the ,canon1 p4 #bee4      #ci   
,see ,matt4 xix4 #aa1 #ab4      #dj     
,strom4 iii4 #a4    ,the next passage   

referred to by ,tischendorf is one      
quoted by  ,epiphanius3 ,and therefore  
he said1 ,cast not ye pearls before     
swine1  neither give that which is holy 
unto dogs4#da ,it is introduced in  the 
section of the work of ,epiphanius      
directed against the  ,basilideans4 ,as 
in dealing with all these heresies there
 is continual  interchange of reference 
to the head and later followers1 there  
is no  certainty who is referred to in  
these quotations1 and in this  instance 
nothing to indicate that the passage is 
ascribed to ,basilides  himself4 ,his   
name is mentioned in the first line of  
the first chapter1  but not again until 
the fifth chapter 7p4 #ej74      #da    
,hr4 xxiv4 #e4    ,i remark1 it was the 
founder of the sect and not the         
followers who  wrote the book1 and those
 who opposed the heresy would1 although 
they  alluded to the sect1 have regard  
to the founder when they referred to    
the doctrines held1 and quoted the      
written opinions which  distinguished   

the party on gospel matters4 ,to make   
the matter as plain  as ,i can1 ,i will 
suppose a case as an illustration of the
 point4  ,supposing that in ,pliny's    
letter to ,trajan there were found these
  words referring to the ,christians3   
,they say1 the rule which should be     
observed in regard to an enemy is1 ,love
 your enemies1 bless them that  curse   
you1 do good to them that hate you1 and 
pray for them which  persecute          
you--would it be right to assert that   
the quotation is no  proof that ,christ 
so taught1 but ,his disciples1 long     
afterwards8 ,this  is something like    
what our author's objection1 referring  
to the  pronouns he and they in         
,hippolytus1 amounts to4 ,they does not 
mean he when thus used2 and he1 when    
actually used in the first  line of the 
first chapter1 and afterwards means1    
they2 that is1 ,he  7,basilides7 says1  
means ,they 7his followers at a later   
date7 say4    ,the plural pronoun is    
used1 indicating the sect1 ,basilides   

and his  followers4 ,therefore our      
author says there is uncertainty as to  
who he  is when used in the same        
sentence4 ,he says ,hippolytus is giving
 an  epitome of the views of the school 
with nothing more definite than a       
subjectless  7he says7 to indicate who  
is referred to4  ,none of the quotations
 which we have considered are directly  
referred  to ,basilides himself1 but    
they are introduced by the utterly vague
  expression1 ',he says' 771 without any
 subject accompanying the  verb4    ,the
 suggestion 7p4 #ea7 that ,hippolytus   
consciously or unconsciously1  in the   
course of transfer to his pages1        
corrected the text1 is very             
unsatisfactory4 ,an intelligent reader  
cannot fail to see how an  obvious      
inference is avoided1 and how ingenuity 
is taxed to make words  square with     
foregone conclusions4    ,tischendorf   
asks3 ,who is there so sapient as to    
draw the line between  what the master  
alone says1 and that which the disciples

 state1  without in the least repeating 
the master8 7p4 #ei7 and our author     
says1 ,tischendorf solves the difficulty
 by referring everything                
indiscriminately to the master 7p4 #ei74
 ,to say that ,tischendorf does  this is
 reckless assertion4    ,when our author
 has to account for such a passage in   
,basilides as1  ,the ,holy ,spirit shall
 come upon thee1 and the power of the   
,highest  shall overshadow thee1 he says
 it happens to agree with the words  in 
,luke i4 #ee2 and resorts to his usual  
mode of avoiding the  acknowledgment    
that such a verbatim quotation is       
against his  hypothesis1 by saying1     
,there is good reason for concluding    
that the  narrative to which it belongs 
was contained in other ,gospels4 ,the   
following sentence is startling1 and apt
 to mislead those who do not  take the  
trouble to be sure of his meaning4 ,he  
says 7p4 #fg73 ,nothing1  however1 can  
be clearer than the fact that this      
quotation1 by whomsoever  made1 is not  

taken from our ,third ,synoptic1        
inasmuch as there does not  exist a     
single ,,ms4 which contains such a      
passage4 ,what does he mean8  ,we turn  
to ,luke i4 #ce1 and read3 ,the ,holy   
,ghost shall come upon  thee1 and the   
power of the ,highest shall overshadow  
thee3 therefore  also that holy thing   
which shall be born of thee shall be    
called the  ,son of ,god4 ,does he mean 
the whole passage is not in any ,,ms8   
,no3 he  means the following1 with the  
slight variation at the end1 is not in  
any ,,ms4 ,the ,holy ,spirit shall come 
upon thee1 and the power of the         
,highest shall overshadow thee1         
therefore the thing begotten of thee    
shall be called holy4 ,only the words in
 italics are different in  the two      
passages1 and the meaning is the same1  
the only difference  being that the     
latter does not include the words the   
,son of ,god4 ,the  remark that the     
quotation happens to agree with the     
passage in ,luke  i4 #ce1 should not be 

unnoticed4    ,happens6 ,mark the       
peculiar inappropriateness of the word4 
,it indicates  our author's whereabouts1
 and is a beacon in the book to warn the
  reader4 ,events transpire1 and they   
happen to agree with prophetic  visions 
which plainly foretold them6 ,reason    
being unequal to an  explanation1       
coincidence must be resorted to4 ,was it
 an accident that1  at one particular   
point in history1 and in one special    
individual1  the elements of a new      
religious development1 which1 per se1   
were  already extant1 should have       
concentrated themselves in a new life8  
,this1 says ,baur1 is the wonder in the 
history of the origin of  ,christianity 
which no historical reflection can      
further analyse4 ,did  it happen that   
the ,messiah came as was predicted      
centuries before8    ,did ,paul happen  
to have a vision just at the time when  
the whole  course of his life underwent 
a change1 and from being a chief        
persecutor of the faith he became a     

chief apostle--no less an apostle  than 
the most prominent among the ,twelve8   
,if the ,saviour did not meet  him on   
the way to ,damascus he could not be an 
apostle2 and as he was  an honest man1  
and no impostor1 could what happened to 
him have been  other than what he       
asserted8 ,baur was in a great          
difficulty about the  matter1 and said1 
,no analysis1 either psychological or   
didactic1 can  clear up the mystery of  
that act in which ,god revealed ,his    
,son in  ,paul4 ,jeremiah prophesied    
that the ,jews should return to their   
own  land after seventy years of exile1 
and they happened to do so6    ,the     
artful way in which the evidence from   
the writings of ,hippolytus  is disposed
 of is one of the most notable things in
 the book we are  reviewing4 ,the       
reader's attention is taxed to keep up  
with the  sophistical argument1 and our 
author finds it necessary to explain why
  he has been forced to go at such a    
length into these questions1 as to  risk

 being very wearisome to his readers 7p4
 #gc74    ,these remarks apply to a     
great extent to the examination of the  
evidence of ,valentinus1 described as   
another ,gnostic leader1 who1  about the
 year ,a4,d4 #adj1 came from ,alexandria
 to ,rome1 and flourished  till about   
,a4,d4 #afj4 ,very little remains of the
 writings of this  ,gnostic1 and we gain
 our only knowledge of them from a few  
quotations  in the works of ,clement of 
,alexandria1 and some doubtful fragments
  preserved by others 7p4 #ef74         
,marcion1 the son of a bishop of        
,pontus1 became a conspicuous heretic   
in the second century1 and there was a  
book called ,marcion's ,gospel1  which  
has long furnished a field for          
criticism4 ,he was a ,pauline  heretic1 
denouncing the ,jewish party which      
insisted upon dragging  ,jewish         
observances into ,christianity4 ,he went
 to ,rome about ,a4,d4  #aci-adb1 and   
taught there some twenty years4 ,his    
opinions were widely  disseminated4 ,his

 collection of apostolic writings1 which
 is the  oldest of which we have any    
trace1 includes 7says our author7 a     
single  ,gospel and ten ,epistles of    
,paul--viz41 ,galatians1 ,corinthians   
7#b71  ,romans1 ,thessalonians 7#b71    
,ephesians 7in the superscription of    
which  there is1 to the ,laodiceans71   
,colossians1 ,philippians1 and          
,philemon4    ,the ,gospel of ,marcion  
is not extant1 but it is referred to by 
his  opponents1 who affirmed that his   
evangelical work was an audaciously     
mutilated version of ,luke's ,gospel4   
,our author gives a brief account  of   
the various opinions which have         
prevailed about the book during the     
last hundred years1 and considers the   
discussion upon it far from  closed4 ,is
 it a mutilation of ,luke1 or an        
independent work derived  from the same 
source as his1 or is it a more primitive
 version of that  ,gospel8 ,whence are  
the materials from which the portions of
 the text  extant are derived8          

,tertullian and ,epiphanius denounced   
,marcion's  heresy4 ,the former called  
him impious and sacrilegious1 which1 our
  author says1 implies anything but fair
 and legitimate criticism4 ,i  remark1  
,did he deserve the epithets8 ,would    
,paul1 who tells the  ,colossians to    
beware lest any man spoil them through  
philosophy and  vain deceit1 after the  
traditions of men1 after the rudiments  
of the  world1 and not after ,christ1   
have been less emphatic in his          
denunciations in such a case8 ,marcion  
was more ,pauline than ,petrine1  but   
would ,paul have failed to censure in   
the strongest language such a           
misrepresentation of ,jehovah and the   
,old ,testament economy as ,marcion     
disseminated8    ,can our author's      
assertion be absolutely true that       
,tertullian and  ,epiphanius were only  
dogmatical1 and not in the least        
critical8 ,how  could they be otherwise 
than to a certain extent critical8 ,they
 were  not critics in the way of taking 

nothing for granted1 after the modern   
fashion2 but they must have weighed1    
compared1 and tested ,marcion's  views  
while writing against them4 ,the spirit 
of the age1 he says1  was indeed so     
uncritical1 that not even the canonical 
text could  awaken it into activity4    
,this is a sentence which suggests that 
the  position in the ,church of the     
canonical text was so evident1 that to  
question it was then unwarrantable1 as1 
indeed1 it has continued to be  to this 
day4 ,the combined internal and external
 evidences harmonising  with the        
believer's consciousness1 his           
necessities1 and his  aspirations1 were 
sufficient to preclude sceptical and    
captious  criticism4    ,the ,christian 
contemporaries of ,irenus1 ,tertullian1 
and ,epiphanius  were uncritical in that
 they did not doubt that the foundations
 of  their faith were sure4 ,the gospel 
which had been preached to them1  which 
had changed the whole course of their   
lives1 corresponded in its  main        

features with the four books which were 
held in estimation by  the ,church at   
that time above all other writings2 and 
they would not  be likely to wrangle    
about the title instead of cultivating  
the faith  they possessed4 ,they could  
not1 perhaps1 prove by the rules of     
logic  that ,god is1 and is the rewarder
 of them that diligently seek him2  that
 ,christ is the brightness of the       
,father's glory1 and the express  image 
of his ,person2 but they knew that ,he  
had said1--,ye believe in  ,god believe 
also in me2 ,in my ,father's house are  
many mansions2  and1 ,i go to prepare a 
place for you4 ,be thou faithful unto   
death1  and ,i will give thee a crown of
 life4 ,they lived in the consciousness 
of these truths1 and died 7,bishop      
,pothinus1 for instance7 a martyr's     
death rather than deny them4    ,there  
is this remark to be made in reference  
to the alleged uncritical  age of the   
,fathers4 ,how is it that ,marcion is   
seen to be so critical8  ,he is surely  

after the modern model4 ,he who wrote   
the ,antithesis1  and1 as our author    
says1 anticipated in some of his        
opinions those  held by many in our own 
time2 he who wrote1--,if the ,god of the
 ,old  ,testament be good1 prescient of 
the future1 and able to avert evil1  why
 did he allow man1 made in his own      
image1 to be deceived by the  devil1 and
 to fall from obedience of the law into 
sin and death8#db  ,how came the devil1 
the origin of lying and deceit1 to be   
made at  all8#dc surely he is an        
instance of a man in that age possessing
 the  critical faculty4 ,he has the     
boldness to question1 and say1--,yea1   
hath ,god said8 ,anticipating the       
results of modern criticism1 says  our  
author1 ,marcion denies the             
applicability to ,jesus of the          
so-called ,messianic prophecies 7p4     
#ajf74      #db ,tertullian1 ,adv4      
,marc4 xi4 #e1 cf4 #i4      #dc ,ibid4  
xi4 #aj4    ,if the research which is   
going on as to the ,gospel of ,marcion  

be  conducted in a proper manner1 and   
from a proper motive1 not from          
antipathy to parsons and ecclesiastical 
assumptions1 which was the  incentive of
 ,strauss in attacking ,christianity1   
good will come of it4  ,as ,justin      
,martyr did not1 as far as we know1     
suppose the book to be a  corrupted     
version of the ,gospel according to     
,luke1 ,tertullian may have  been       
mistaken1 and it may have been an       
independent work1 one of the  many ,luke
 refers to1 the existence of which does 
not necessarily  invalidate the         
canonical ones4 ,we may naturally       
suppose that events of  such marvellous 
speciality and importance as those which
 had come to  pass in those days among  
the ,jews1 would be more or less        
described  in letters and other writings
 by many persons who were eye-witnesses4
  ,such writings would be collected and 
read when the first ,christians         
assembled4 ,the difference between the  
four canonical ,gospels and other       

manuscripts would consist in their being
 compiled by persons competent  to the  
task1 who1 like ,ezra1 were instruments 
,divinely influenced to  compile and set
 forth in order a declaration of those  
things1 for  the benefit of future ages 
and the religious instruction of the    
race4    ,the analysis of the text of   
,marcion by ,hahn1 ,ritschl1 ,volkmar1  
,helgenfeld1 and others1 who have       
examined and systemised the data of  the
 ,fathers1 is supposed to be sufficient 
to awaken in any inquirer  uncertainty1 
and stimulate conjecture 7p4 #aja74 ,i  
do not doubt it4  ,german hypercriticism
 is able1 by a process of ratiocination1
 to  discredit any truth1 even to       
persuade men that the ,throne of the    
universe is vacant1 and that the only   
altar that man has the knowledge  to    
rear is one to the ,unknown ,god2 but   
,he sits on no precarious throne1       
,nor borrows leave to be4    ,they who  
believe in the inspiration by the ,holy 
,ghost of the prophets  of the ,old     

,testament see no difficulty in regard  
to the inspiration of  the writers of   
the ,new4 ,if ,isaiah and ,jeremiah and 
,daniel had  supernatural communications
 made to them1 in order that the        
,eternal  ,creator might be manifested1 
why not ,paul and ,john and ,matthew8   
,it is  the foregone conclusion1 on the 
part of critics1 that the miraculous  is
 impossible1 which embarrasses their    
researches4 ,one of ,john ,stuart       
,mill's last sentences is3 ,it remains a
 possibility that ,christ  actually was 
what ,he supposed ,himself to be4 ,if   
this had occurred to  the great reasoner
 at the outset of his career instead of 
the close1  how much might the world    
have been advantaged6    ,tatian is a   
witness whose evidence our author next  
tries to set aside4  ,he was an         
,assyrian by birth1 a disciple of       
,justin ,martyr at ,rome1 and           
afterwards1 having joined the sect of   
the ,eucratites1 a conspicuous  exponent
 of their austere and ascetic doctrines4

 ,the only one of his  writings extant  
is his ,oration to the ,greeks1 written 
after ,justin's  death1 as it refers to 
that event1 and it is generally dated   
,a4,d4  #agj-age4 ,one point contested  
is ,canon ,westcott's affirmation that  
it  contains a clear reference to a     
parable recorded by ,matthew3#dd  ,the  
kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure 
hidden in a field1 which  a man found   
and hid1 and for his joy he goeth and   
selleth all that he  hath and buyeth    
that field4 ,and the supposed reference 
by ,tatian is1  ,for by means of a      
certain hidden treasure he has taken to 
himself all  that we possess1 for which1
 while we are digging1 we are indeed    
covered with dust1 but we succeed in    
making it our fixed  possession4#de     
#dd ,matt4 xiii4 #dd4      #de ,orat4 ad
 ,gr4  #cj4    ,there is certainly not  
much similarity between the two         
passages1  although ,tatian may be well 
supposed to have had the parable in his 
mind when he wrote4 ,the more important 

question is1 ,did ,tatian write  ,a     
,harmony of ,four ,gospels1 which       
recognises our four ,evangelists8  ,was 
his ,diatessaron such a book1 or was it 
the ,gospel according to the  ,hebrews8 
,if the latter1 what is the ,gospel     
according to the ,hebrews8 ,i  say it is
 probable it is the corrupted ,hebrew   
translation of the ,greek  ,gospel of   
,matthew1 and this conjecture has more  
in its favour than our  author's        
hypothesis4    ,dionysius of ,corinth1  
,eusebius tells us1 wrote seven epistles
 to  various ,churches1 and a letter to 
,chrysophora1 a most faithful  sister4  
,only a few short fragments exist1 which
 are all from the  epistle to ,soter1   
,bishop of ,rome1 whose date in that    
pastorate is ,a4,d4  #afh-agf4 ,in these
 fragments we find the following        
words3--,for the  brethren having       
requested me to write epistles1 ,i write
 them4 ,and the  apostles of the devil  
have filled these with tares1 both      
taking away  parts and adding others1   

for whom the woe is destined4 ,it is not
  surprising1 then1 if some have        
recklessly ventured to adulterate the   
,scriptures of the ,lord1 when they have
 corrupted these1 which are not  of such
 importance4#df ,after quoting this     
passage1 our author  reiterates his     
statement that ,we have seen that there 
has not been a  trace of any ,new       
,testament ,canon in the writings of the
 ,fathers before  and during this age4  
,does he suppose his readers will have  
seen as he  sees1 or rather refuse to   
see what is plain enough8 ,he has his   
own  opinion1 but he need not assume    
that he has convinced his readers that  
he has proved what he alleges4 ,he talks
 of ,westcott's boldness1 and of  his   
imagination running away with him1 and  
that it is simply  preposterous to      
suppose that this passage refers to the 
,new ,testament4  ,i leave ,canon       
,westcott to defend his own words1 but  
,i say it is not  preposterous to infer 
that when ,dionysius speaks of the      

,scriptures of  the ,lord he means      
,gospel writings1 which are included in 
our ,new  ,testament4 ,if it be assumed 
that the defence of the authority of the
  ,new ,testament writings and of       
evangelical views is necessarily based  
on the synodical authority of the early 
,church1 there may be some  weight in   
his objections2 but ,christianity has a 
position independent  of ecclesiastical 
pretensions to infallibility1 and the   
latter may be  overthrown without the   
great institution established by ,divine
 mercy  for the recovery of humanity    
from sin and its consequences being in  
the slightest degree damaged4 ,dr4      
,donaldson is quoted1 who remarks3  ,it 
is not easy to settle what this term1   
',scriptures of the ,lord1'  is2 but my 
own opinion is that it most probably    
refers to the ,gospels1  as containing  
the sayings and doings of the ,lord4 ,it
 is not likely1 as  ,lardner supposes1  
that such a term would be applied to the
 whole of  the ,new ,testament4#dg ,the 

word ,scripture1 in ,greek1   7,graph71 
in ,latin1 ,scriptura1 has1 no doubt1 a 
meaning  which denotes an inspired      
writing4 ,it is used fifty-one times in 
the  ,new ,testament in the same sense1 
for ,christ and the authors of the  ,new
 ,testament regarded the ,old ,testament
 as distinguished from all  other       
writings1 as the writing--the writing of
 ,god4 ,by speaking of  their own books 
as ,graphai1 the apostles place them on 
a level with  the ,old ,testament1 and  
thus assert their ,divine character4#dh 
#df ,eusebius1 ,h4 ,e4 iv4 #bc4      #dg
 ,hist4 ,christ4 ,lit4 and ,doct4 ii4 p4
 #bag4      #dh ,see ,chr4 ,wordsworth1 
,on the ,canon1 p4 #ee4 ,lec4 ii4 and   
,ed4    #ahea4    ,dr4 ,davidson speaks 
of the ,new ,testament writings being   
ranked as  ,holy ,scripture by          
,dionysius of ,corinth1 ,a4,d4 #agj4    
,our author asserts 7p4 #afg7 that many 
works were regarded as inspired  by the 
,fathers besides those in our ,canon1   
and mentions especially  the ,gospel of 

,peter having been read at ,rhossus4 ,he
 says3 ,the fact  that ,serapion1 in the
 third century1 allowed the ,gospel of  
,peter to be  used in the ,church of    
,rhossus shows the consideration in     
which it was  held1 and the             
incompleteness of the canonical position
 of the ,new  ,testament4 ,now1 he ought
 to have quoted ,serapion's own         
explanation1  which we have preserved by
 ,eusebius4 ,he says 7in his treatise   
written  to confute what was false in   
the ,gospel of ,peter73 ,we receive     
,peter  and the other apostles even as  
,christ2 but the writings falsely called
  by their names1 we1 as competent      
critics1 renounce1 knowing that we      
received not such things4 ,for when ,i  
was with you ,i supposed that all  were 
agreed with the true faith2 and1 without
 reading the ,gospel  called ,peter's1  
which they brought forward1 ,i said1 ,if
 this is the  only thing that seems to  
cause you dissension1 let it be read4   
,serapion says he borrowed the book and 

read it1 and found many things          
agreeable to ,christ's doctrine1 but    
some discrepant additions4    ,thus the 
reading of the ,gospel of ,peter at     
,rhossus cannot be instanced  as a proof
 that other ,gospels besides the        
canonical ones were used as  inspired   
books1 nor can any other be mentioned as
 having been thus  regarded1 the ,gospel
 according to the ,hebrews not being    
apocryphal1  but a part of the ,new     
,testament1 whether we take it to be1 as
 our  author supposes1 the basis of     
,matthew's ,gospel1 or1 as we say1 a    
corrupted version of that apostle's     
,greek work4 ,to argue that because  one
 spurious ,gospel was temporarily       
received among a few persons1  therefore
 there was no real canon of ,scripture1 
and we cannot be sure  that any ,gospel 
is genuine1 shows about as much common  
sense and  logical acumen as would be   
displayed by a critic eighteen centuries
  hence1 who1 discovering in one of our 
newspapers an account of the  conviction

 of a gang of coiners1 should argue that
 because their base  half-crowns had got
 into circulation1 and had passed       
current with some  persons who might    
have been expected to detect the fraud1 
therefore  there was no such thing as a 
legal currency of intrinsic value among 
us2 or if there were1 still we did not  
know or care to inquire into  the       
genuineness of the coin which we        
accepted and passed4#di      #di ,see   
,kentish ,bache's ,letters to ,dr4      
,davidson1 p4 #bb4    ,our author says  
7p4 #af73 ',the ,pastor of ,hermas1'    
which was read in  the churches1 and    
nearly secured a permanent place in the 
,canon1 was  quoted as inspired by      
,irenus4#ej      #ej ,adv4 ,hr4 iv4 #bj1
  #b2 ,euseb4 ,h4 ,e4 v4 #h1 and cf4    
iii4 #c4    ,the word ,irenus uses is   
,graph1 which is sometimes translated1  
when  found in his works1 ,scripture1   
and at other times writings1 as may     
best suit the argument of a critic like 
,dr4 ,davidson1 who does so  adapt the  

translation to suit his purpose4        
,whatever erroneous notions might       
prevail as to apocryphal writings1  the 
discrimination of ,serapion1 in regard  
to the ,gospel of ,peter1  shows that   
such a work as the ,pastor of ,hermas1  
in which1 as  ,mosheim says1 the angels 
are made to talk more insipidly than our
  scavengers and porters1 would not be  
put on a level with the books  whose    
internal evidence1 as well as historical
 pretensions1 placed  them in a much    
superior position4 ,the contrast is too 
great for such  men as ,irenus and      
,tertullian1 as well as ,serapion1 not  
to have  recognised the difference4 ,the
 gross forgeries were too gross to be   
at once accepted as genuine by the      
,fathers of the slight critical  faculty
 and the ready credulity of our author's
 argument4    ,melito of ,sardis1 whose 
writings1 it is generally agreed1 belong
 to  ,a4,d4 #agf1 because the fragment  
extant has a phrase indicating that     
,commodus had been admitted to share the

 ,imperial ,government with  ,marcus    
,aurelius1 is the next witness4 ,he     
writes to ,onesimus1 a                  
fellow-,christian who had urged him to  
make selections for him from the  ,law  
and the ,prophets concerning the        
,saviour and the faith generally1  and  
furthermore desired to learn the        
accurate account of the old  7,palaion7 
books4 ,having gone to the ,east1       
,melito says1 and reached  the spot     
where each thing was preached and done1 
and having learned  accurately the books
 of the ,old ,testament1 ,i have sent a 
list of  them4 ,dr4 ,westcott excites   
our author's ire because he says that   
the  use of the word 'old' in this way  
implies that there must have been a     
,new ,testament1 and the form of        
language implies a familiar recognition 
of its contents4 ,this is truly         
astonishing1 says our author4 ,i        
remark1 it is truly astonishing that any
 one should assert that the  use of the 
adjective old in this sentence does not 

plainly indicate  the existence of other
 books of a ,new ,covenant or           
,testament4 ,if the  ,jewish ,scriptures
 had been merely described as old books1
 we could  have understood the          
objection2 but as the words occur1      
having  learned accurately the books of 
the ,old ,testament1 we must side with  
,dr4 ,westcott1 in spite of our author's
 astonishment4    ,claudius             
,apollinaris1 ,eusebius says1 was       
,bishop of ,hierapolis1 and  there is   
the fragment of a letter of ,serapion1  
,bishop of ,antioch1  which supports the
 statement1 and in which ,apollinaris is
 referred to  as the most blessed4 ,the 
date of his writings1 in consequence of 
an  allusion to the ,thundering ,legion 
of the army of ,marcus ,aurelius1 may   
be fixed at about ,a4,d4 #agd4 ,none of 
them are extant4 ,we have only two      
brief fragments1 in which the           
controversy respecting the observance of
  the ,christian ,passover is alluded   
to4 ,the following passage is           

important3 ,there are some1 however1 who
 through ignorance raise  contentions   
regarding these matters in a way which  
should be pardoned1  for ignorance must 
not be pursued with accusation1 but     
requires  instruction4 ,and they say    
that the ,lord1 together with ,his      
disciples1  ate the lamb on the great   
day of unleavened bread1 and they state 
that  ,matthew says precisely what they 
have understood2 hence their            
understanding of it is at variance with 
the law1 and according to them  the     
,gospels seem to contradict each other4 
,tischendorf and ,westcott  naturally   
adduce this passage in support of the   
position of the four  canonical         
,gospels4 ,our author demurs1 arguing   
that there is such  exceedingly slight  
reason for attributing these fragments  
to ,claudius  ,apollinaris1 and so many 
strong grounds for believing that he    
cannot  have written them1 that they    
have no material value as evidence for  
the antiquity of the ,gospels 7p4 #aia74

    ,athenagoras wrote an apology1      
entitled ,the ,embassy of ,athenagoras  
the  ,athenian1 a ,philosopher and a    
,christian1 concerning ,christians1 to  
the  ,emperors ,marcus ,aurelius        
,antoninus and ,lucius ,aurelius        
,commodus1  ,armeniaci ,surmatici1 and1 
above all1 ,philosophers2 and also a    
,treatise on the ,resurrection of the   
,body4 ,a passage from the former       
occurs in the work of ,methodius on the 
,resurrection1 and is preserved  by     
,epiphanius and by ,photius4    ,for we 
have learnt not only not to render a    
blow1 nor to go to law  with those who  
spoil and plunder us2 but1 to those who 
inflict a blow  on one side1 also to    
present the other side of the head in   
return for  smiting2 and to those who   
take away the coat1 also to give besides
 the  cloke4#ea      #ea ,leg4 pro      
,christ4  #a4    ,of this our author    
says3 ,no echo of the words of ,matthew 
has lingered  in the ear of the writer1 
for he employs utterly different        

phraseology  throughout2 and nothing can
 be more certain than the fact that     
there  is not a linguistic trace in it  
of acquaintance with our ,synoptics  7p4
 #aid74    ,the value of our author's   
conclusions may be measured by what he  
here  asserts4 ,it seems to me that the 
reverse may be asserted4 7#a7 ,that     
words in ,matthew did linger in the ear 
of the writer2 7#b7 that he  does not   
employ utterly different phraseology    
throughout2 and 7#c7  that many things  
can be more certain than the fact that  
there is  not a linguistic trace in it  
of acquaintance with our ,synoptics4    
,the next passage which is referred to  
is as follows3--,what1 then1 are  those 
precepts in which we are instructed8 ,i 
say unto you1 ,love your  enemies1 bless
 them that curse you1 pray for them that
 persecute you2  that ye may be sons of 
your ,father which is in the heavens1   
who maketh  his sun1 c4#eb      #eb     
,leg4 pro ,christ4  #aa4 ,see ,matt4 v4 
#dd1 #de4    ,there is also the         

following3--,for if ye love1 them which 
love you1  and lend to them which lend  
to you1 what reward shall ye have8#ec   
#ec ,leg4 pro4 ,christ4  #ab4 ,comp4    
with ,matt4 v4 #df4    ,of this passage1
 our author says it is evident that it  
does not agree  with either of the      
,synoptics4 ,we have seen1 says he1 the 
persistent  variation in the quotations 
from the ,sermon on the ,mount which    
occur  in ,justin1 and there is no part 
of the discourses of ,jesus more        
certain to have been preserved by living
 ,christian tradition1 or to  have been 
recorded in every form of ,gospel4 ,the 
differences in these  passages from our 
,synoptics present the same features as 
mark the  several versions of the same  
discourse in our ,first and ,third      
,gospel1  and indicate a distinct source
 7p4 #aie74 ,i remark1 every step our   
author takes in this sort of criticism  
tends to the confirmation of  our       
,christian faith1 which is not the      
,christianity of a creed or a  ,church1 

but the belief in a ,person4 ,the more  
independent accounts of  ,his life and  
discourses which can be traced1 the     
greater the proof of  ,his advent and   
mission4 ,the ,sermon on the ,mount     
cannot be accounted  for apart from the 
superhuman4 ,never man spake like this  
man4 ,the  more it is quoted the more it
 is established as a sublime fact in    
literature1 which neither the ,jewish   
race1 nor the ,augustan era1 nor  indeed
 any other race or any other age1 could 
have originated apart  from ,divine     
intervention4    ,the ,epistle of       
,vienne and ,lyons1 written from the    
,churches in those  towns to their      
brethren in ,asia and ,phrygia1 about   
the year ,a4,d4 #agg1  giving an account
 of the terrible persecution which had  
broken out1 is  in part preserved by    
,eusebius4 ,it contains words similar to
 those used  in regard to ,zacharias and
 ,elisabeth1 where they are said to have
  walked in all the commandments and    
ordinances of ,god1 blameless4 ,and  it 

has also the words1 ,and himself having 
the ,spirit more abundantly  than       
,zacharias1 which compares with ,luke i4
 #fg3 ,and his father  ,zacharias was   
filled with the ,holy ,spirit1 and      
prophesied4 ,in  reference to these     
passages1 our author's comment is as    
follows3 ,the  state of the case is1 we 
find a coincidence1 in a few words in   
connection with ,zacharias1 between the 
,epistle and our ,third ,gospel2  but so
 far from the ,gospel being in any way  
indicated as their source1  the words in
 question are1 on the contrary1 in      
association with a  reference to events 
unknown to our ,gospels1 but which were 
indubitably  chronicled elsewhere4 ,it  
follows clearly1 and few will venture to
  doubt the fact1 that the allusion in  
the ,epistle is to a ,gospel  different 
from ours1 and not to our ,third        
,synoptic at all 7p4 #bjd74  ,the event 
unknown to our ,gospels is the martyrdom
 of ,zacharias1 which  our ,gospels make
 no mention of4    ,ptolemus and        

,heracleon1 two ,gnostic leaders1 are   
next referred to4 ,of  the former1      
,epiphanius has preserved ,the ,epistle 
to ,flora1 addressed  to one of his     
disciples1 which contains passages      
similar to sentences  found in ,matthew 
xii4 #be1 xix4 #h1 #f1 xv4 #d-h1 v4 #ch1
 #ci42 but our  author objects that the 
,epistle was in all probability written 
towards the end of the second century1  
and therefore it does not come  within  
the scope of our inquiry2 and he goes   
into considerable detail  to justify    
this statement4    ,celsus wrote a work 
entitled ,true ,doctrine1 which is not  
extant1  and of which ,origen wrote a   
refutation4 ,our author says it refers  
to  incidents of ,gospel history and    
quotes some sayings which have          
parallels1 with more or less of         
variation1 in our ,gospels2 but  ,celsus
 nowhere mentions the name of any       
,christian book1 unless we  except the  
,book of ,enoch1 and he accuses         
,christians1 not without  reason1 of    

interpolating the ,book of the ,sibyl1  
whose authority he  states some of them 
acknowledged 7p4 #bcf74 ,he goes into   
the question  of the date1 which he     
makes out to be probably not between    
,a4,d4  #aej-afj1 as ,tischendorf       
suggests1 but much later4    ,in the    
last fragment of early literature       
examined--the ,canon of  ,muratori--the 
,book of ,luke is alluded to as the     
third ,gospel1 and  our author says 7p4 
#bda7 the statement regarding the ,third
 ,gospel  merely proves the existence of
 that ,gospel at the time the fragment  
was composed1 and that the inference    
that there was a first and  second      
,gospel is a mere conjecture4 ,i remark 
that if the statement  does prove that  
,luke's ,gospel existed at the time the 
fragment was  composed1 we gratefully   
accept the acknowledgment2 and as to the
  adverbs mere and merely1 which qualify
 the noun conjecture  and verb proves1  
when our author's third volume appears1 
if it  does not furnish more than mere  

conjecture that the first and  second   
preceded it1 we will allow the adverbs  
properly applied1 and  the logic        
perfect4    ,the sentences in which such
 words as certainly1 it is certain1 it  
is undeniable1 there is no question1 it 
is impossible to suppose1  it is        
obviously mere speculation1 c41 are     
used1 where the reasoning  does not     
warrant them1 are innumerable2 and it is
 only after becoming  familiar with the 
special pleading which is characteristic
 of the work  throughout1 that the      
unsophisticated reader escapes from the 
bewilderment into which the evidences of
 ,christianity seem to get  entangled4  
,the author seems to have got the reader
 into a gloomy  cavern of criticism1 and
 it is only after the eye has become    
accustomed to the partial darkness that 
he can make out whether what  he is     
taken to see are real figures1 images1  
or ghosts4 ,when he has  got to the     
middle of the second volume1 however1 he
 begins to see the  light again1 and    

breathe more freely4 ,he sees a way     
right through the  cavern1 and finds    
that the figures of this underground    
chamber of  horrors are all phantoms4   
,the ,examiner justly says3 ,for our    
part we see no reason why the           
,synoptic#ed ,gospels may not have      
assumed their present form by the  end  
of the first century2#ee and we cannot  
think that our author's  ,german oracles
 have succeeded in establishing their   
dissimilarity from  the documents quoted
 by the ,primitive ,fathers4 ,justin    
,martyr's  references to the ,sermon on 
the ,mount1 for instance1 appear to us  
to  be actually derived from ,matthew4  
,if1 however1 as is contended1 they     
were taken from the lost ,gospel of the 
,hebrews1 this merely proves  the       
substantial identity of the two4 ,the   
question of ,justin's  acquaintance with
 the ,fourth ,gospel is more difficult4 
,we are  nevertheless disposed to       
resolve it in the affirmative4      #ed 
,the word ,synoptics1 applied to        

,matthew1 ,mark1 and ,luke's ,gospels1  
indicates abridgment--the bringing of   
all parts under one view4--,see    ,dr4 
,hyde ,clark's ,dictionary4      #ee    
,negative critics1 as we have seen1 have
 been compelled again to    raise the   
age of the ,gospels1 and to place them  
in the apostolic age1    between ,a4,d4 
#ej and ,a4,d4 #ajj4--;,dr4 ,christlieb1
 p4 #eda4    ,this is a sensible comment
 on our author's general argument4      
,,chapter ,v4    ,,the ,,fourth         
,,gospel4      ,every trace has vanished
 of the great nameless one4      ,baur4 
,the denial of the authenticity of      
,john's ,gospel is a source of far      
greater difficulties than its           
acknowledgment4      ,ritschl4      ,the
 doctrine of the ,father1 ,son1 and     
,holy ,ghost1 is the fundamental        
doctrine of ,christianity4 ,without it  
,christianity1 as a theological  and as 
a philosophical system1 cannot rank     
above ,rabbinism and  ,mahommedanism4   
,bunsen4          ,,chapter ,v4    ,,the

 ,,fourth ,,gospel4      ,the evidence  
that to ,john the ,apostle is to be     
ascribed the ,fourth  ,gospel1 is worthy
 of the best attention we can bestow    
upon it4 ,after  that apostle had been  
dead half a century1 this book1 as is   
acknowledged by our author and all other
 critics1 occupied a prominent  place   
among the manuscripts of the            
,christians1 with the name of ,john1  as
 the author1 attached2 and the question 
now arises1 after nearly  eighteen      
centuries of belief in its authorship   
and authority1 is there  reasonable     
ground for doubting that it can be      
properly attributed to  the apostle who 
was the companion1 disciple1 and bosom  
friend of  ,jesus8 ,i think the question
 may be answered with confidence upon   
the  evidence within our reach4    ,in  
the first place1 ,irenus believed it was
 the ,gospel according to  ,john the    
,apostle2 and who was ,irenus1 that his 
belief in it should  be good evidence8  
,he was not ,john's contemporary1 but   

there was one  between ,john and ,irenus
 who was so intimate with both that the 
link  of evidence is fully to be relied 
upon1 and that link is ,polycarp4       
,therefore1 ,irenus1 who was a hearer of
 ,polycarp1 can tell us  something about
 it4 ,now ,polycarp was born in the time
 of ,nero1 so he  was for thirty-two    
years a contemporary of ,john's1 and was
 his  disciple4 ,and ,irenus says in a  
letter written to a person called       
,florinus1 and preserved by ,eusebius3  
,when ,i was yet a youth1 ,i saw  thee  
in ,asia ,minor1 at ,polycarp's house1  
where thou wert distinguished  at court1
 and obtained the regard of the bishop4 
,i can more distinctly  recollect things
 which happened then than others more   
recent1 for  events which happened in   
youth seem to grow with the mind1 and to
  become part of ourselves4 ,so ,i can  
tell the place where the blessed        
,polycarp used to sit and discourse1 and
 his going out and coming in1  and the  
manner of his life1 and his personal    

appearance1 and his  discourses to the  
people1 and how he related his          
intercourse with  ,john1 and the rest   
who had seen the ,lord2 and how he      
rehearsed their  sayings1 and what      
things there were which he had heard    
from them  about the ,lord1 and about   
,his miracles1 and about ,his doctrine2 
and  how ,polycarp1 having learned from 
the eye-witnesses of the ,word of       
,life1 narrated all things agreeably    
with the ,scriptures4 ,and to these     
things1 by ,god's mercy bestowed on me  
at that time1 ,i used diligently  to    
listen1 writing the remembrance of them1
 not on paper1 but in my  heart2 and1 by
 ,god's grace1 ,i am always meditating  
affectionately upon  them4#ef      #ef  
,hist4 ,eccl4 v4 #bj4    ,now we may be 
certain that ,polycarp would be likely  
to know the truth  of the matter1 and   
,irenus declares that ,john1 the        
disciple of the  ,lord who leaned on the
 bosom of the ,lord at supper1 wrote the
  ,apocalypse4#eg ,so we have here      

reliable evidence that ,john wrote  both
 the ,apocalypse and the book whose     
author leaned on our ,lord's  bosom at  
supper4 ,not only this from ,polycarp4  
,there is extant ,the  ,epistle of      
,polycarp to the ,philippians1 which    
,irenus believed to be  genuine1 and in 
it we find these words3 ,for whosoever  
doth not  confess ,jesus ,christ hath   
come in the flesh1 is antichrist4 ,i    
compare  this with the words in ,john's 
,epistle3 ,and every spirit that        
confesses not that ,jesus ,christ is    
come in the flesh1 is not of ,god1  and 
this is that spirit of antichrist4 ,our 
author says it is not a  verbatim       
quotation4 ,i say it is a quotation1 if 
not verbatim4 ,it is  acknowledged that 
the author of the ,first ,epistle of    
,john and the  ,fourth ,gospel is the   
same1 the ideas and style being so much 
alike4  ,the two writings1 says ,rnan1  
present the most complete identity of   
style1 the same peculiarities1 the same 
favourite expressions4      #eg ,ibid4  

iv4 #cb4    ,it is impossible to doubt  
that ,polycarp would have learned from  
,john  himself whether he was the author
 of a ,gospel2 and if ,irenus had  never
 heard ,polycarp allude to the ,gospel  
as ,john's1 he could not have  believed 
in it as he did1 and have plainly stated
 that ,john wrote it  and the           
,apocalypse4 ,there would have been in  
this case a justifiable  inference from 
silence4 ,if ,polycarp in his teaching  
had never  alluded to ,john's ,gospel1  
it would have been so strange that      
,irenus  would have deemed it spurious  
altogether1 and unworthy of the         
estimation with which he regarded it2   
for it is one of the four  ,gospels that
 he fancifully likens to the four       
corners of the earth1  the four         
principal winds1 and the four wings of  
the ,seraphim4 ,it is to  be remembered 
that our author acknowledges ,irenus so 
regarded all  the four ,gospels1 for he 
alludes 7p4 #ia7 to the arbitrary       
assumption  of exclusive originality and

 priority for the four ,gospels by      
,irenus1 ,tertullian1 and ,epiphanius4  
,it is evident that this ,fourth        
,gospel could not have first appeared as
 late as ,a4,d4 #aej1 but must  have    
been in existence long before2 and on   
the testimony of ,irenus1  through      
,polycarp1 from ,john himself1 its      
authenticity may be  considered         
established4    ,the evidence from the  
work of ,hippolytus1 entitled1 ,the     
,refutation of  all ,heresies1 that     
,basilides quoted from the ,fourth      
,gospel1 our  author dismisses in one   
paragraph 7p4 #cga71 having fully       
referred to  the testimony from that    
writer in treating of the ,synoptics4   
,there  are1 however1 two very distinct 
passages which cannot be objected to  as
 quotations1 and the attempt to get rid 
of them by the substitution  of the     
plural pronoun they for the singular one
 he1 in the text of  ,hippolytus1 is an 
utter failure4 ,the first is from ,john 
i4 #i1 ,the  true ,light which lighteth 

every man that cometh into the world2   
and  the words in ,the ,refutation1 by  
,hippolytus1 are1 ,and this1 he says1   
is that which has been stated in the    
,gospels1 ',he was the true ,light      
which lighteth every man that cometh    
into the world4' ,the other is1  ,mine  
hour is not yet come1 agreeing with     
,john ii4 #d4 ,the discovery  of the    
work1 ,the ,refutation of all ,heresies1
 in the year #ahda1 at  ,mount ,athos1  
by the erudite ,minoides ,mynas1 a      
,greek1 in the employ of  the ,french   
,government1 was important as bearing on
 this question1 for  it proves that the 
,fourth ,gospel was in existence thirty 
years earlier  than the ,tbingen        
criticism asserted4 ,our author's want  
of  appreciation of the evidence found  
in ,hippolytus is one of the weakest    
points in his book4    ,is the ,fourth  
,gospel quoted by ,justin ,martyr8 ,our 
author says1 ,no6 ,i  say1 ,yes6 to the 
question4 ,in his ,dialogue with        
,tryphon 7p4 #caf7 occur  the words1 ,i 

am not the ,christ1 but the voice of one
 crying1 which  is evidently from that  
,gospel1 for we know of no other which  
makes  ,john the ,baptist say the same4 
,he says the evangelical work of which  
,justin made use was obviously different
 from our ,gospels1 and the  evident    
conclusion to which any impartial mind  
must arrive is1 that  there is not only 
not the slightest ground for affirming  
that ,justin  quoted the passage 7as    
above7 from the ,fourth ,gospel1 from   
which he so  fundamentally differs1 but 
every reason on the contrary to believe 
that he derived it from a particular    
,gospel1 in all probability the  ,gospel
 according to the ,hebrews 7p4 #cjb74 ,i
 remark1 that the words1  ,i am not the 
,christ1 but the voice of one crying1   
could not be  quoted from the ,gospel   
according to the ,hebrews if that       
supposed  independent book did not      
contain them1 and there is no evidence  
that  it did4 ,on the contrary1 our     
,gospel of ,matthew1 compiled1 as we    

suppose1 partly from it1 would have in  
that case had the words2 and as  it has 
not1 and as only ,john's ,gospel has    
them1 the inference is clear  that      
,justin had seen the latter1 as well as 
the other ,gospel or  ,gospels from     
which the earlier part of the sentence  
is taken4 ,the  whole of ,justin's      
sentence is as follows3 ,for ,john sat  
by the ,jordan  and preached the baptism
 of repentance1 wearing only a leathern 
girdle  and raiment of camel's hair1 and
 eating nothing but locusts and wild    
honey4 ,men supposed him to be the      
,christ1 wherefore he cries to them1  ,i
 am not ,christ1 but the voice of one   
crying 7or preaching74 ,for he  cometh  
who is greater than ,i1 whose shoes ,i  
am not meet to bear4    ,we find in the 
second ,apology 7p4 #id7 these words3   
,christ said1  ',except ye be born again
 ye may not enter into the kingdom of   
heaven2 and in the very same line is    
continued the reference to the          
conversation with ,nicodemus1 in these  

words3 ,but that it is  impossible for  
those who have been once born to enter  
into their  mother's womb1 is plain to  
all4 ,i scarce need remind you how the  
statement of ,christ and the question of
 ,nicodemus are as close  together in   
the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,the passage there 
is1 ,except a man be  born again1 he    
cannot see the kingdom of ,god4         
,nicodemus saith unto  him1 ,how can a  
man be born when he is old8 ,can he     
enter the second  time into his mother's
 womb and be born8 ,the two sentences1  
coming  together in both1 leaves no     
doubt that ,justin used the ,fourth     
,gospel1  for there is nothing like them
 in any of the other ,gospels4    ,it is
 something to have from ,justin ,martyr 
the evidence that ,jesus  taught        
,nicodemus that a man cannot see the    
kingdom of ,god without  being born of  
the ,holy ,ghost4 ,if ,justin quoted    
from an earlier ,gospel1  it is against 
our author's non-superhuman theory2 and 
if from our  ,gospels1 it is equally so4

 ,but1 supposing that he could prove    
that  ,justin did not quote1 that would 
not prove that the books were not  in   
existence4 ,paul's ,epistles1 #a        
,thessalonians1 ,galatians1 #a          
,corinthians1 and ,romans1 all written  
not later than the year #eh1 are  they  
quoted1 as we might suppose they would  
be1 by ,justin8 ,we know  nothing as to 
the extent of his library4 ,he might    
have had copies of  all these ,gospels  
and ,epistles1 or none at hand to quote 
verbatim  from4 ,was there a            
concordance1 to help a writer to be     
exact1 after the  modern demand8    ,the
 internal evidence of the ,fourth       
,gospel is1 perhaps1 not so  appreciable
 by our author as the external1 on      
account of his foregone  conclusion that
 the superhuman is incredible4 ,but as  
there is no  feasible explanation of the
 ,divine origin of ,christianity without
  acknowledging the ,divine mission of  
,jesus1 so is there no possible         
explanation of the ,fourth ,gospel      

without a recognition of the            
evangelical doctrine of the triune in   
the ,divine ,nature--the threefold      
manifestation of the one ,god4 ,exclude 
from the ,fourth ,gospel the idea  of   
the ,holy ,spirit having inspired ,john 
to write it1 and there  naturally       
follows the attempt to exclude the book 
from its historical  and authoritative  
position4 ,it has a perfectly harmonious
 place in the  superhuman means by which
 spiritual truth is exhibited and       
enforced  for the benefit of mankind1   
but that place is an advanced one4 ,it  
was  the last of inspired utterances1   
and it presupposes the development  that
 it supplements1 and which it designs to
 promote4 ,the ,holy ,spirit1  the ,god 
of peace that brought again from the    
dead our ,lord ,jesus1  that ,great     
,shepherd of the sheep1 through the     
blood of the everlasting  covenant1 to  
make us perfect in every good work to do
 ,his will1  must be recognised and duly
 honoured if the ,bible is to be        

understood  and ,christianity           
successfully exhibited and defended4    
,let us turn to  the book4 ,it opens    
with allusions to the dignity of ,christ
 the ,messiah  which no philosophy known
 in ,alexandria had a conception of4    
,philo and  his ,platonic school        
discoursed of the ,logos2 but their     
doctrine is  distinct from that of this 
,gospel4 ,justin takes up their idea1 as
 our  author shows 7p4 #bgh71 and draws 
a distinction between the ,logos and    
,jesus1 describing ,jesus ,christ as    
being made flesh by the power of the    
,logos2 for ,justin says1--,through the 
power of the ,word1 according to  the   
will of ,god the ,father and ,lord of   
all1 he was born a man of a  virgin4#eh 
,philo says1#ei--,the ,logos of ,god is 
above all things in  the word1 and is   
the most ancient and most universal of  
all things  created4 ,i do not deny that
 ,justin got ideas of the ,logos from   
the  ,old ,testament and from the       
writings of ,philo1 as shown by our     

author1  but ,i submit that he confused 
their doctrine with the more developed  
truth of the ,new ,testament4 ,it is    
certain1 he says 7p4 #bia71 that  both  
,justin and ,philo1 unlike the prelude  
to the ,fourth ,gospel1 place  the      
,logos in a secondary position to ,god  
the ,father1 indicating a less  advanced
 stage in the doctrine4 ',he calls the  
,word constantly the  first-born of all 
created beings' 7p4 #bib74 ,our author  
says1--,we  do not propose in this work 
to enter fully into the history of the  
,logos doctrine 7p4 #bhj74 ,had he done 
so1 he could not have shown that  the   
doctrine reached to the height of the   
apostolic conception4 ,there  is no     
allusion to the ,divinity of the ,logos1
 as ,john and ,paul assert2  and no     
reference to the unquestionable         
statement of ,scripture that1 in  the   
,word made flesh1 we have a revelation  
of the mysterious triune  nature of     
,jehovah4 ,a vague notion of it is found
 in many idolatrous  systems of         

religious worship1 and its prevalence is
 an indication of  the truth which      
tradition1 from primitive revelation1   
has handed  down2 but the mystery1 as   
,paul says1 was hidden for ages and     
generations1 and was not made manifest  
until1 in the fulness of time1  the     
scheme of ,redemption was fully         
unfolded4 ,the gospel is called by      
,paul the revelation of the mystery1    
which was kept secret since the  world  
began1 but now is made manifest by a    
clear interpretation of the  scriptures 
of the prophets1 according to the       
commandment of the  everlasting ,god1   
made known to all nations for the       
obedience of  faith4#fj ,to concentrate 
the doctrine in the ,fourth ,gospel and 
,paul's later epistles1 and then        
repudiate the writings1 is a mode of    
sustaining the denial of it which is far
 from being successful4 ,this  doctrine 
is evidently one of the essential       
elements of ,christian  truth4 ,as the  
bread which sustains our bodily life1 so

 the bread of  the life of the soul1 may
 be decomposed1 but none of the elements
 must  be left out of it if it is to be 
of use4 ,in the ,old ,testament we find 
many passages which show the plurality  
in the ,divine nature4 ,the  doctrine1  
it is true1 was not so revealed as to be
 conspicuous at the  time1 for if it had
 been1 it would have been misunderstood1
 and thus  tended to interfere with the 
schooling which the ,jews were          
undergoing  to cure them of their       
proneness to idolatry2 but with the ,new
  ,testament in our hand we see what1   
without it1 would be still hidden  in   
obscurity4 ,as we read the ,fourth      
,gospel in the light of this  doctrine1 
how it harmonises with the plan of      
salvation which  believers in all       
evangelical ,churches call              
,christianity6 ,the book  professes to  
be written that men1 believing in ,jesus
 ,christ1 may have  eternal life2       
records the testimony of ,john the      
,baptist that ,jesus was  the ,lamb of  

,god which taketh away the sin of the   
world 7i4 #bi72 and  announces the      
important dogma that the supernatural   
influence of the  ,holy ,spirit is      
indispensable to overcome the           
unwillingness of the soul  of man to    
receive the truths of the ,divine       
revelation4 ,no man can  come to me1    
except the ,father which hath sent me   
draw him 7vi4 #dd74  ,except a man be   
born of the ,spirit he cannot enter the 
kingdom of  ,god4 ,it testifies to the  
,divine nature of ,jesus in the most    
explicit  manner4 ,therefore the ,jews  
sought to kill him1 because he said ,god
  was his ,father1 making himself equal 
with ,god 7v4 #ah74 ,that all men       
should honour the ,son1 even as they    
honour the ,father 7v4 #bc74 ,if ye  had
 known me1 ye should have known my      
,father also 7viii4 #ai74  ,verily1     
verily1 ,i say unto you1 ,before        
,abraham was1 ,i am 7viii4 #eh74  ,it is
 he 7the ,son of ,god7 that talketh with
 thee4 ,and he 7the man who  had been   

blind7 said1 ,lord1 ,i believe4 ,and he 
worshipped him 7ix4  #ch74 ,i and my    
,father are one 7x4 #cj74 ,for blasphemy
 7we stone  thee71 and because thou1    
being a man1 makest thyself ,god 7x4    
#cf74  ,jesus said unto her1 ,i am the  
resurrection1 and the life3 he that     
believeth in me1 though he were dead1   
yet shall he live3 and whosoever  liveth
 and believeth in me shall never die4   
,believest thou this8 7xi4  #be1 #bf74  
,jesus said1 ,now is the ,son of man    
glorified1 and ,god is  glorified in    
him4 ,if ,god be glorified in him1 ,god 
shall also glorify  him in himself1 and 
shall straightway glorify him 7xiii4    
#cb74 ,he  that hath seen me hath seen  
the ,father 7xiv4 #i74      #eh ,apol4  
i4 #df4      #ei ,leg4 iii4  #fa4       
#fj ,rom4 xvi4 #be1 #bf4    ,the        
doctrine of what we call 7not having a  
better word7 the  personality of the    
,holy ,spirit is clearly indicated in   
such passages  as the following3--,i    
will pray the ,father1 and he shall give

 you  another ,comforter1 that he may   
abide with you for ever2 even the       
,spirit of truth2 whom the world cannot 
receive1 because it seeth him  not1     
neither knoweth him3 but ye know him2   
for he dwelleth with  you 7xiv4 #ag74   
,but the ,comforter1 the ,holy ,ghost1  
whom the ,father  will send in my name1 
he shall teach you all things1 and bring
 all  things to your remembrance1       
whatsoever ,i have said unto you 7xiv4  
#bf74 ,it is expedient for you that ,i  
go away3 for if ,i go not away1  the    
,comforter will not come unto you2 but  
if ,i depart1 ,i will send  him unto    
you4 ,and when he is come1 he will      
reprove the world of  sin1 and of       
righteousness1 and of judgment 7xvi4    
#g74 ,when he1 the  ,spirit of truth1 is
 come1 he will guide you into all truth3
 for he  shall not speak of himself2 but
 whatsoever he shall hear1 that shall   
he speak3 and he will show you things to
 come 7xvi4 #ac74 ,the  seventeenth     
chapter ,i will not refer to in part1   

but specify entire1  begging the reader 
to meditate on its marvellous           
comprehensiveness and  expressiveness4  
,much of the teaching of ,jesus would be
 so far above the comprehension  of the 
disciples when they heard it1 that it   
would not be likely to be  impressed on 
their memory4 ,the ,holy ,spirit was to 
be sent1 to bring  all things to their  
remembrance2 and it is only by this     
promise being  fulfilled that we can    
understand the inspired words of the    
,fourth  ,gospel4    ,could ,jesus have 
said what ,he is described in this book 
to have said1  if ,god had not been with
 ,him as ,he never was with any other   
man8 ,if  such a question be pertinent1 
how utterly needless the further        
question1 ,could the book have been     
written by the nameless unknown  some   
one whom the hypothesis of its          
non-,johannine origin substitutes  as   
the author8    ,whatever difference     
there is between the composition of the 
,fourth  ,gospel and the ,apocalyse1    

there is1 at all events1 a striking     
analogy  between the opening verses of  
the former and those in the latter1     
where the faithful and true witness is  
referred to as the beginning  of the    
creation of ,god1#fa and as being set   
down with ,his ,father  upon ,his       
throne4 ,in the preface to each of the  
addresses to the seven  ,churches       
,christ assumes the attributes and      
prerogatives of the ,deity4  ,the       
prominence given to the mysterious      
doctrine of the ,divinity of  ,christ is
 as great in the one as the other4      
#fa ,rev4 iii4 #ad4    ,it is somewhat  
singular that from ,rnan1 who so utterly
 rejects the  miraculous1 we should have
 such a decided opinion that it is      
appropriately entitled the ,gospel      
according to ,john4 ,after saying1 ,i   
dare not be sure that the ,fourth       
,gospel has been entirely written by  a 
,galilean fisherman1 he writes in his   
introduction to the ,life of  ,jesus3   
,no one doubts that towards the year    

#aej1 the ,fourth ,gospel  did exist1   
and was attributed to ,john4 ,explicit  
texts from ,justin1  ,athenagoras1      
,tatian1 ,theophilus of ,antioch1 and   
,irenus1 show that  from thenceforth    
this ,gospel mixed in every controversy1
 and served as  corner-stone for the    
development of the faith4 ,irenus is    
explicit4  ,now he came from the school 
of ,john1 and between him and the       
apostle  there was only ,polycarp4 ,the 
part played by this ,gospel in          
,gnosticism1  and especially in the     
system of ,valentinus1 in ,montanism1   
and in the  quarrel of the              
,quartodecimans1 is not less decisive4  
,the school of  ,john was the most      
influential in the second century1 and  
it is only by  regarding the origin of  
the ,gospel as coincident with the rise 
of the  school1 that the existence of   
the latter can be understood at all4    
,the ,first ,epistle1 attributed to     
,john1 is certainly by the same  author 
as the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,now this       

,epistle is recognised as from  ,john by
 ,polycarp1 ,papias1 and ,irenus4 ,but  
it is1 above all1 the  perusal of the   
,fourth ,gospel itself which is         
calculated to give the  impression that 
,john must have written it4 ,the author 
always speaks  as an eye-witness4 ,he   
wishes to pass for the ,apostle ,john4  
,if1 then1  this work is not really by  
the apostle1 we must admit a fraud of   
which  the author convicts himself4     
,now1 although the ideas of the time    
respecting literary honesty differed    
essentially from ours1 there is  no     
example in the apostolic world of a     
falsehood of this kind4  ,besides1 not  
only does the author wish to pass for   
the apostle1 but we  see clearly that he
 writes in the interest of this apostle4
    ,as to the difference in language   
and style between it and the            
,apocalypse1 it is not altogether       
unusual for an author to produce  works 
which differ greatly from each other4   
,an instance is mentioned  by the ,rev4 

,kentish ,bache1 in his letter to ,dr4  
,davidson4 ,william  ,penn1 within one  
and the same year 7#affh7 wrote two     
different works1  entitled ',the ,sandy 
,foundation ,shaken1' and ',innocency   
with her ,open  ,face4' ,the former     
pamphlet is circulated by the           
,unitarians as a tract  demolishing the 
doctrine of the ,trinity1 while the     
latter is an  earnest defence of that   
very doctrine2 and yet ,penn protests   
that his  belief had undergone no change
 7p4 #ce74    ,one of the difficulties  
in the way of the reception of the      
,fourth  ,gospel is the raising of      
,lazarus from the dead1 which the       
,synoptics do  not record4 ,a probable  
explanation is suggested by ,grotius1   
who says1  as ,lazarus was living when  
the ,synoptics were written1 and as the 
chief priests consulted that they might 
put him to death1 because that  by      
reason of him many of the ,jews went    
away and believed on  ,jesus1#fb the    
publication of the miracle would have   

exposed ,lazarus  to more intense       
hostility1 and endangered his life4     
#fb ,john xii4 #aj4    ,our author makes
 the strange assertion that the ,fourth 
,gospel1 by  whomsoever written--even if
 it could be traced to the ,apostle     
,john--has no real historical value1    
being at best the glorified             
recollections of an old man1 written    
down half a century after the  events   
recorded 7p4 #dfg74 ,this bold assertion
 ignores the fact that  the impressions 
of early life are1 as a rule1 indelibly 
fixed on the  memory4 ,of no historical 
value1 though written by ,john6 ,our    
author  knows perfectly well that such  
an event as the raising of ,lazarus from
  the dead could never fade from the    
memory of those who witnessed it4  ,does
 he overlook1 or suppress1 the          
consideration that ,john's  recollection
 would be daily refreshed by the        
teaching of the  principles of a gospel 
which consisted of these events and     
discourses8  ,we can as well conceive of

 the ,duke of ,wellington having        
forgotten1  when he was eighty years    
old1 the campaigns of the ,peninsula and
 the  battle of ,waterloo1 as ,john     
forgetting the memorable transactions in
  the life of his ,master with which he 
was so closely identified4  ,besides1 we
 do not know that the materials for     
,john's book had not  long before been  
noted down4 ,it is not probable that he 
who wrote the  ,apocalypse in the year  
#fh would put nothing into writing of   
the  memoirs until close upon the time  
when the book was published4 ,such is   
not the mode of authorship now1 and was 
not then4 ,supposing the  apostle to    
have died1 leaving behind him unarranged
 materials1  including notes and        
memoranda made at various times1 and    
that these  were1 with fidelity1 but    
with more scholarship than ,john        
possessed1  transcribed1 edited1 and    
made a book of1 entitled ,the ,gospel   
according to ,john1 we have an          
explanation of the linguistic           

difficulty which does not overstep the  
limits of reasonable  probability4      
,well may ,dr4 ,davidson acknowledge it 
is not easy to account for the  early   
belief of its ,johannine origin2 and    
that if a disciple of  ,john wrote it1  
he had learned more than his master4 ,it
 would have  been strange if such an    
author had continued unknown4 ,if we    
reject  the ,johannine origin1 we have  
to believe that during the fifty years  
between ,john's death and the time of   
the book's general acceptance as  his   
there lived some one capable of writing 
it1 of whom history and  tradition are  
silent4 ,this is certainly a large      
matter for sceptical  credulity to      
swallow4 ,how much easier to believe    
that the refinement  and beauty of      
composition1 whose charm has captivated 
the world1 is  the work of a ,grecian   
disciple1 who wrote under the           
superintendence1  if not dictation1 of  
the apostle who only could have         
furnished the  materials at the time    

when it was written4 ,at the close of   
the first  century all the other        
apostles were dead1 and for its         
authorship we  cannot look beyond the   
circle which surrounded ,jesus at the   
instituting of that ever-abiding        
memorial of ,him1 ,the ,lord's ,supper4 
,among the anomalies of our author's    
hypothesis we have to think of the      
apostles living in the first century1   
and attaining their reputation  as      
writers during the second4 ,in the first
 century men appear1 but  without their 
writings4 ,in the second century the    
writings come to  light1 but without the
 men4 ,how unnatural1 says ,dr4         
,christlieb1 is  this6 ,who can fail to 
see that the hypothesis is incredible8  
,we invariably find that an age which is
 fertile in literary  productions is    
followed by a conservative period1 in   
which the  productions of the foregoing 
period are collected and digested--first
  the classical1 then the               
post-classical4 ,does the second        

century1 in  other respects1 bear the   
impress of a productive classical period
 in  literature8 ,on the contrary1 its  
undoubted products breathe a spirit     
which bears the same relation to the    
,new ,testament writings as does  the   
tenour of a post-classical age bear to  
that of the age preceding  it4 ,did     
these writings1 especially the ,fourth  
,gospel1 belong to  'unknown' authors1  
they would be perfectly inexplicable    
phenomena as  compared with all the     
other products of that period4 ,it has  
been well  said that it were no less    
absurd to ascribe the most inspiriting  
writings of ,luther to the spiritless   
period of the ,thirty ,years' ,war1     
than to transfer the ,gospel of ,john to
 the middle of the second  century4#fc  
#fc ,dr4 ,christlieb1 p4 #eda4          
,notwithstanding their warm ,christian  
life1 the writings of the second        
century evince such a remarkable dearth 
of new ideas that one plainly  sees how1
 after the spiritual flood-tides of the 

first century1 the  ebb had set in4#fd  
#fd ,dr4 ,christlieb1 p4 #eda4          
,compare1 for instance1 the clear and   
sober-minded spirit of the ,new         
,testament epistles1 or the quiet       
sublimity of the ,gospel of ,john1 with 
the epistles of ,ignatius1 the          
enthusiasm of which degenerates into a  
well-nigh fanatic desire for martyrdom2 
or with the ,pastor of ,hermas1  and the
 value ascribed by him to ascetic       
rigour2 or with the epistles  by        
,clement of ,rome1 which tell the fable 
of the phnix as a fact2 or1  again1 with
 the ,epistle of ,barnabas1 which       
delights in insipid  allegories1 and    
gives the most absurd typical           
interpretations of the  ,old ,testament1
 justifying ,neander's remark1 that here
 we encounter  quite another spirit than
 that of an apostolic man4#fe      #fe  
,ibid4 p4 #eda4    ,our author produces 
such a mass of evidence from the early  
writers1  confirmatory of the truths of 
the ,gospel1 that his criticism tends to

  opposite conclusions4 ,supposing he   
can prove that the canon of  ,scripture 
is not unassailable1 he has not         
accomplished much4 ,it is  of more value
 to have confirmation of the facts and  
principles of  ,divine truth1 than to be
 assured that the authorship1           
construction1  compilation1 or          
arrangement of the ,scriptures1 are just
 what the  ,church of ,rome             
authoritatively pronounced4 ,because we 
cannot  positively settle certain       
questions of little comparative         
importance1  are we to surrender our    
faith in essentials8 ,are we to let the 
conjectures and queries of ,german      
cavillers1 with their ,yea1 hath ,god   
said1 destroy our cherished faith and   
hope8 ,god forbid6 ,it is not the       
preservation or infallibility of the    
apostolic writings which makes  ,his    
incarnation1 death1 and resurrection1   
facts in the history of our  race4 ,the 
facts make the history1 not the history 
the facts4 ,europe  was saved from      

,oriental despotism by ,leonidas at     
,thermopyl1 and the  valour and         
patriotism of the ,greeks2 by ,charles  
,martel in the eighth  century2 and     
again by ,prince ,eugene in the         
seventeenth century2 but it  is not     
because history has truly or imperfectly
 recorded these facts  that we enjoy to 
this day the great benefits resulting to
 civilisation  from their heroism4      
,the truth of ,christianity does not1 at
 all events1 rest on the  quotations of 
the early ,fathers1 and our author would
 have  accomplished but little had he   
proved that there were none found4 ,in  
the first ages of the ,church1 when the 
events were fresh1 the voice  of the    
preacher was the channel which conveyed 
the saving gospel to  the souls of men1 
and there was not the same necessity for
 reference  to the written records as in
 after times4 ,when a century had       
elapsed  after the death of ,christ1    
then the records of the first disciples 
became of importance4 ,they then came   

into prominence1 and were  abundantly   
quoted1 as our author acknowledges4 ,as 
time went on that  importance increased1
 and about three hundred years after the
 events  the ,emperor ,constantine      
ordered ,eusebius to have fifty copies  
of the  ,holy ,scriptures fairly        
inscribed on parchment1 the use whereof 
he  tells ,eusebius he knew to be       
absolutely necessary to the ,church4    
,eusebius gives us the emperor's entire 
letter4 ,they were not so  absolutely   
necessary when most of the ,fathers     
wrote whom our author  has referred to4 
,i do not want any written record to    
prove to me  that the ,spaniards in the 
,peninsular ,war1 seventy years ago1    
poisoned  the bread of the ,british     
troops4 ,i lived in my youth with an old
  ,christian soldier and his wife who   
were in the campaign1 and used to  amuse
 me with their experience of such facts1
 as we sat round the fire  on a winter's
 evening4 ,nor of the ,american ,war of 
,independence do the  people of the     

present generation depend entirely on   
writings or books  for the proof that it
 took place4 ,two lives reach from date 
to date1  and no evidence can be        
stronger than such4    ,until we have   
better reason than our author has       
adduced for altering  our estimate of   
these sacred writings1 so often         
assailed1 but  maintaining serenely1    
century after century1 their high       
pretensions as  a message from heaven to
 culture our moral and spiritual nature1
 and  guide us thither1 we should be    
foolish1 oh1 how foolish6 to question   
their authority or neglect their        
guidance4 ,because we cannot be sure    
that the ,bible is in every detail the  
perfect transcript of ,divine           
revelation1 we are to abandon the only  
solace that humanity possesses1  the    
only theory which accounts for the      
wickedness which1 without its  teaching1
 is such an anomaly to all else in      
creation1 the only bond  which binds    
society in brotherhood1 and makes social

 existence capable  of including        
happiness here1 or the hope of life     
hereafter4 ,better a  misunderstood     
revelation than none at all4 ,better a  
glimpse of  immortality1 than the       
negation which is utter darkness1 and   
makes the  issue of existence only      
death4          ,,chapter ,,vi4         
,,contemporary ,,evidence4      ,hoist  
with his own petard4          ,,chapter 
,,vi4    ,,contemporary ,,evidence4     
,we now come to the question of         
contemporary evidence4 ,our author says 
the testimony of the ,new ,testament in 
favour of the miraculous is  inadequate 
because it is not contemporary4 ,i have 
to endeavour to show  that he has       
himself proved it to be contemporary4   
,the ,spectator describes him as        
virtually saying3 ,it is as if you      
tried to prove some unheard-of facts of 
the civil war in the time of  ,charles  
,i4 by testimony not to be traced higher
 than the reign of  ,george ,,iii4 ,i   
say we trace the testimony to one of    

,cromwell's own  officers1 and our      
author's own criticism shall be shown to
 prove it4    ,i take one piece of      
evidence of his own which he has        
elaborately  presented4 ,i compare it   
with proofs of the same kind from other 
sources4 ,i refer to the authorities    
specified1 and ,i accept it and  endorse
 it4 ,but ,i make a different use of it4
 ,he uses it to prove that  because     
,john1 the apostle1 wrote the           
,apocalypse1 he cannot have  written the
 ,fourth ,gospel4 ,i use it to prove    
that because ,john wrote  the           
,apocalypse the facts of the ,gospel are
 by contemporary testimony              
substantiated2 and ,i contend that this 
evidence--clear1 direct1 and            
irrefragable--neutralises his main      
argument and the object of his  book1   
which is to invalidate supernatural     
religion and the reality of  ,divine    
revelation4    ,he says 7on page #cib of
 his second volume73 ,the external      
evidence  that the ,apostle ,john wrote 

the ,apocalypse is more ancient than    
that  for the authorship of any other   
book of the ,new ,testament1 excepting  
some of the epistles of ,paul4 ,justin  
,martyr affirms in the clearest  and    
most positive manner the apostolic      
origin of the work4 ,he speaks  to      
,tryphon of a certain man whose name was
 ,john1 one of the apostles  of ,christ1
 who prophesied1 by a revelation made to
 him1 of the  ,millennium and subsequent
 general resurrection4 ,the genuineness 
of  this testimony is not called in     
question by any one4    ,as another most
 important point we may mention that    
there is probably  not another work of  
the ,new ,testament the precise date of 
the  composition of which1 within a very
 few weeks1 can be so positively        
affirmed4 ,no result of criticism rests 
upon a more secure basis1 and  is now   
more universally accepted by all        
competent critics than the  fact that   
the ,apocalypse was written ,a4,d4 #fh1 
#fi4 ,the writer  distinctly and        

repeatedly mentions his name4 ',the     
revelation of ,jesus  ,christ 444 unto  
his servant ,john4 ,john to the seven   
,churches which are  in ,asia2' and he  
states that the work was written in the 
island of  ,patmos1 where he was 'on    
account of the word of ,god and the     
testimony  of ,jesus' 7p4 #cie74    ,it 
is clear that the writer counted fully  
upon being generally known  under the   
simple designation of ,john2 and when we
 consider the  unmistakable terms of    
authority with which he addresses the   
seven  ,churches1 it is scarcely        
possible to deny that the writer either 
was  the apostle1 or1 distinctly desired
 to assume his personality 7p4  #cig74  
,the whole description 7of the ,new     
,jerusalem7 is a mere allegory of  the  
strongest ,jewish dogmatic character1   
and it is of singular value  for the    
purpose of identifying the author 7p4   
#cii74    ,there is no internal evidence
 whatever against the supposition that  
the ',john' who announces himself as the

 author of the ,apocalypse was  the     
apostle4 ,on the contrary1 the tone of  
authority adopted  throughout1 and      
evident certainty that his identity     
would everywhere  be recognised1 denote 
a position in the ,church which no other
 person  of the name of ,john could     
possibly have held at the time when the 
,apocalypse was written4 ,the external  
evidence1 therefore1 which  indicates   
that ,apostle ,john as the author is    
quite in harmony with the  internal     
testimony of the book itself 7p4 #djb74 
,i have quoted sufficient to show that  
our author1 whose object is to          
discredit the ,fourth ,gospel1          
elaborately and successfully proves that
  ,john the ,apostle wrote the          
,apocalypse4    ,there is other         
testimony to prove this1 easily got at1 
besides what  our author supplies4      
,sir ,isaac ,newton long ago fixed upon 
the year #fh as the date4    ,dr4       
,davidson says3 ,we should despair of   
proving the authenticity of  any ,new   

,testament book by the help of ancient  
witnesses1 if that of  the ,apocalypse  
be rejected4    ,in the present         
quarter's ,edinburgh ,review 7,october  
#ahgd7 there is a  remarkable           
confirmation of the importance ,i am    
attaching to the  ,apocalypse as a book 
written by the ,apostle ,john during the
 nine  months' reign of the ,emperor    
,galba1 that is1 between ,may #a1 #fh1  
and  ,january #ae1 #fi4 ,the writer of  
the article1 which is a review of       
,rnan's ,antichrist1 says3 ,the         
arguments which support the  assignment 
of ,a4,d4 #fh as the date of its        
composition are absolutely              
irresistible4 ,and he adds3 ,here we    
have a book the date of which is        
positively ascertained1 and the writer  
almost certainly known1 while  its      
contents are of a prophetic character1  
and lay claim 7in a marked  manner7 to  
inspiration1 yet are so peculiarly      
historical in their  character1 and deal
 with a period of history so perfectly  

well known  down to its minutest        
details1 that it can be checked and     
verified at  every turn4 ,might we not  
almost say that we have here 7as in the 
,book  of ,daniel7 a gauge by which to  
measure inspiration1 a sample by  which 
to understand prophecy1 a key for a full
 comprehension of what  ,holy ,scripture
 is and means8    ,the ,apocalypse is1  
as our author describes it1 an ecstatic 
and  dogmatic allegory4 ,what it is     
besides1 which the believer in ,divine  
inspiration would include in the        
definition1 is out of the range of  such
 a critic's comprehension1 and he would 
not be likely to attach  much importance
 to the words1 ,write the things which  
thou hast seen1  and the things which   
are1 and the things which shall be      
hereafter4  ,but he seems to have       
overlooked how much essential           
evangelical  doctrine it expresses1 and 
how much it is imbued with its spirit2  
that  it testifies to the resurrection  
of ,christ and the atonement4 ,although 

it is an allegory1 its author could no  
more have written it1 if he  had known  
nothing of those doctrines1 than ,bunyan
 could have written  ,the ,pilgrim's    
,progress1 or ,milton ,paradise ,lost   
and ,regained4 ,by  proving ,john to be 
the author of this highly dogmatic      
treatise1 as  he calls the ,apocalypse1 
he takes us to the essence of the       
dogmas4  ,they must have either been in 
existence before ,john wrote it1 or he  
invented them1 for they are certainly   
there4    ,he seems unconsciously to    
have furnished the very contemporary    
evidence which such critics as himself  
pretend not to have found1  and profess 
they require1 before they can accept the
 miracles and  evangelical doctrines of 
the gospel4    ,he allows that ,matthew 
was an eye-witness1 but denies that he  
wrote  of miracles4 ,he allows that     
,paul wrote of miracles1 but he was  not
 an eye-witness4    ,now ,john both saw 
them and wrote of them1 for he was the  
son of  ,zebedee1 and he wrote the      

,apocalypse4 ,this being proved1 we have
 in  it1 from him1 as an eye-witness of 
the miracles of ,jesus1 evidence  which 
confirms the ,gospels4 ,the vision is   
from ,him who liveth and  was dead2 the 
first begotten of the dead1 who cometh  
with clouds1  and to one who was in the 
spirit on the ,lord's day4    ,it as    
evidently presupposes the miraculous    
facts of the ,gospels1 and  is          
supplementary to them1 as certainly as  
it presupposes the  prophecies of the   
,old ,testament1 and supplements the    
predictions of  ,daniel4    ,the        
allegory of a ,lamb as it had been      
slain1 which is prominent in  the       
vision1 is unmistakable4 ,no critic     
could be so perverse as to deny  that   
this plainly indicates that ,jesus      
,christ rose from the dead1 and  that   
,his death is referred to as a sacrifice
 for sin in fulfilment of  the ancient  
types and sacrificial rites2 nor can it 
be doubted that  the same is in harmony 
with the gospel which ,paul preached and

 wrote  about in his absolutely         
unquestionable epistles1 to which alone 
we  refer1 avoiding1 for obvious        
reasons1 allusion to the ,acts of the   
,apostles1 as our author seems to ignore
 that book altogether4    ,let us turn  
to the sublime words of this            
,apocalypse1 proved to have  been       
written by ,john the ,apostle1 and as we
 read1 imagine1 if we can1  that the    
author himself1 and the ,christians of  
the seven ,churches of  ,asia and       
elsewhere1 knew nothing of the          
miraculous facts of the  ,gospels and   
the doctrine of the atonement with which
 they are  inseparably connected2 and   
imagine1 if we can1 that they were both 
added1 according to our author's        
hypothesis1 to the original and lost    
,gospels a century later4 ,it is        
entitled ,the ,revelation of ,jesus     
,christ1 which ,god gave unto him1 to   
show unto his servants things  which    
must shortly come to pass4    ,among    
such things--shortly to come to         

pass--affecting the ,church1 we  cannot 
be wrong in understanding the attack    
upon ,jerusalem by the  ,romans to be   
included4 ,if so1 the saying of the     
angel--,rise and  measure the temple of 
,god1 and the altar1 and them that      
worship  therein1 implies that          
,jerusalem was still standing when the  
book was  written4 ,also1 among the     
things shortly to come to pass1 must be 
understood the impending judgments on   
,rome 7the mystical ,babylon7 for  the  
terrible and bloody persecution which   
had lately happened2 for  ,rome is      
evidently referred to in the seventeenth
 chapter1 where we  read3 ,upon her     
forehead was a name written1 ,mystery1  
,babylon the  great2 and ,i saw the     
woman drunken with the blood of the     
saints and of  the martyrs of ,jesus4   
,we are left in no uncertainty as to the
  interpretation of this chapter1 for it
 is given us in the last verse1  where  
we are told--,and the woman which thou  
sawest is that great city  which        

reigneth over the kings of the earth4   
,the seven heads are  seven mountains on
 which the woman sitteth4 ,and there are
 seven  kings1 five are fallen1 and one 
is1 and the other is not yet come4  ,it 
is all but certain that the kings       
referred to are--#a ,augustus1 #b       
,tiberius1 #c ,caligula1 #d ,claudius1  
#e ,nero1 and the #fth1 which now  is1  
,galba1 who reigned nine months1 from   
#ast ,may1 #fh1 till #aeth  ,january1   
#fi2 the #gth1 to come next1 being      
,otho1 who1 when he cometh1  must       
continue a short space4 ,it was but a   
short space1 for on the  #bjth of ,april
 in the same year ,vespasian ascended   
the throne4 ,the  beast which was to    
appear next is undoubtedly ,nero2 for   
though he was  dead1 ,tacitus tells us  
there was a wide-spread rumour1 which   
created  great alarm1 that the report of
 his having committed suicide1 when the 
senate had denounced him1 was false4 ,he
 is said to have been  personified by a 
slave1 who took up his abode in an      

island not far  from ,patmos4 ,when we  
think of the ,roman coins of that date  
having on  them the words ,nero ,csar1  
the ,hebrew letters for which are       
identical with the six hundred          
threescore and six1 the number of the   
beast1 which he that hath understanding 
is to count1 we cannot avoid  the       
conclusion that ,nero1 under the symbol 
of a beast1 is referred to4    ,if this 
be the correct interpretation1 there is 
no uncertainty about  the date and      
authorship of the book4    ,the preface 
or title closes with the words1 ,blessed
 is he that  readeth1 and they that     
hear1 the words of this prophecy1 and   
keep  those things which are written    
therein2 for the time is at hand4  ,and 
then the book opens with an apostolic   
salutation to the ,churches1  and a     
fervent ascription of praise to         
,jehovah1 and to the risen and  exalted 
,messiah and ,redeemer4    ,john to the 
seven ,churches which are in ,asia      
7,churches planted by  ,paul years      

before73 ,grace unto you1 and peace1    
from him which is1 and  which was1 and  
which is to come2 and from ,jesus       
,christ1 the faithful  witness1 the     
first begotten from the dead1 and the   
prince of the kings  of the earth4 ,unto
 him who loved us1 and washed us from   
our sins in  his own blood1 and hath    
made us kings and priests unto ,god and 
his  ,father2 to him be glory and       
dominion for ever and ever4    ,i ,john1
 who also am your brother1 and companion
 in tribulation1 and  in the kingdom and
 patience of ,jesus ,christ1 was in the 
isle that is  called ,patmos1 for the   
word of ,god1 and for the testimony of  
,jesus  ,christ4 ,i was in the spirit on
 the ,lord's day4 7,to be in the  spirit
 on the ,lord's day is in harmony with  
evangelical ,christianity1  and quite   
meaningless apart from it4 ,the first   
day of the week is1  undoubtedly1 called
 the ,lord's day1 because on that day   
,he rose from  the dead2 and bread has  
been broken and wine drunk on that day1 

in  obedience to ,his commands1 and in  
remembrance of ,his death1 ever since   
the day of ,pentecost47    ,i am he that
 liveth1 and was dead2 and1 behold1 ,i  
am alive for  evermore1 and have the    
keys of hades and of death4    ,the     
,lion of the tribe of ,juda1 the ,root  
of ,david1 hath prevailed to  open the  
book1 and to loose the seals thereof4   
,and ,i beheld1 and1 lo1 in the midst of
 the throne 444 a ,lamb as it  had been 
slain2 and they sung a new song1 saying1
 ,thou art worthy to  take the book1 and
 open the seals thereof3 for thou wast  
slain1 and  hast redeemed us to ,god by 
thy blood out of every kindred1 and     
tongue1  and people1 and nation4        
,worthy is the ,lamb that was slain to  
receive power1 and riches1 c4           
,blessing1 and honour1 and glory1 and   
power1 be unto him that sitteth  upon   
the throne1 and unto the ,lamb1 for ever
 and ever4    ,these are they that came 
out of great tribulation1 and washed    
their  robes1 and made them white in the

 blood of the ,lamb4    ,and every      
creature which is in heaven1 and on the 
earth1 and under  the earth1 and such as
 are in the sea1 and all that are in    
them1 heard  ,i saying1 ,blessing1 and  
honour1 and glory1 and power1 be unto   
him that  sitteth upon the throne1 and  
unto the ,lamb1 for ever and ever4      
,there is nothing in the ,fourth        
,gospel1 nor in any other part of       
,scripture1 that more emphatically      
proclaims the ,godhead of ,jesus        
,christ than this worship of ,him by the
 whole host of heaven4 ,the  whole      
creation1 as twice described in the     
second commandment1 fall  down and      
worship ,him4 ,it is identical with the 
language ,paul uses in  his letter to   
the ,philippians3 ,wherefore ,god also  
hath highly exalted  him1 and given him 
a name that is above every name1 that in
 the name  of ,jesus every knee should  
bow1 of things in heaven1 and things in 
earth1 and things under the earth2 and  
every tongue should confess  that ,jesus

 ,christ is ,lord1 to the glory of ,god 
the ,father4    ,this sort of language  
pervades the whole book4 ,the allegory  
of a ,lamb  slain to wash away sin by   
the shedding of ,his blood occurs a     
score  times4    ,it is not possible to 
read it and believe what our author     
insinuates4  ,he wants some proof that  
the four ,gospels are not religious     
romances  written long after the events 
occurred which they record4 ,i point out
  that the author has the proof in his  
own argument that ,john wrote the       
,apocalypse1 and that the evidence      
therein given to the miracles is not    
affected by any uncertainty whether the 
,gospels were produced by               
eye-witnesses1 or constructed on        
second-hand evidence1 by such  disciples
 as ,mark and ,luke4    ,no criticism   
ever questions that ,paul preached a    
miraculous gospel1  or ever doubts the  
genuineness of certain of his epistles  
in which the  doctrines are fully       
stated4    ,there are1 at least1 four   

which have never been questioned--viz41 
the  ,first of ,thessalonians1 written  
about the year #ej2 the ,epistle to the 
,galatians1 ,a4,d4 #eb2 the ,first of   
,corinthians1 ,a4,d4 #eg2 and the one to
  the ,romans1 ,a4,d4 #eh2 and in all   
those letters the miracles and          
doctrines are referred to which1 years  
before1 when he first went  forth to    
preach1 were the themes of his ministry4
 ,his insight into  spiritual matters   
increased as he grew older1 as his later
 writings  indicate2 but from first to  
last it was the same gospel4    ,he     
writes to the ,corinthians in the year  
#eg1 to remind them of the  gospel he   
had preached unto them4 ,he says1 ,i    
delivered unto you first  of all that   
which ,i also received1 how that ,christ
 died for our sins1  according to the   
,scriptures1 and that he was buried1 and
 that he rose  again the third day1     
according to the ,scriptures2 and that  
he was seen  of ,peter1 then of the     
twelve2 after that he was seen of five  

hundred  brethren at once1 of whom the  
greater part remain unto this present1  
but some are fallen asleep4 ,after that 
he was seen of me also1 as of  one born 
out of due time4 ,now as ,paul's written
 version of the  gospel at this time was
 in the main identical with ,john's1 we 
get from  the evidence that ,john wrote 
the ,apocalypse a very definite         
conclusion4    ,it has been absurdly    
suggested by ,john ,stuart ,mill1 and   
others1#ff  that ,paul originated the   
dogmatic doctrines of ,christianity4    
,now we  know that ,paul1 in the early  
years of his ministry1 communicated with
  ,james1 ,peter1 and ,john1 at         
,jerusalem1 respecting that gospel which
 he  was preaching among the ,gentiles2 
for he writes to that effect in his     
unquestioned epistle to the ,galatians1 
and tells them that when those  three   
apostles1 who seemed to be pillars1     
perceived the grace that was  given to  
him1 they gave to him and ,barnabas the 
right hand of  fellowship4 ,would ,john 

and ,peter and ,james have done this if 
the  miraculous gospel ,paul told them  
he was preaching was inconsistent  with 
their own knowledge of the circumstances
 and events in ,christ's  life of which 
they were all eye-witnesses8      #ff   
,nothing can be more false than the     
fashionable notion of our day    that   
,paul was the author of ,christianity4  
,the true founder of    ,christianity   
was ,jesus4--,rnan 7,the ,apostles1 p4  
#c74    ,we have ,john writing a book   
before the destruction of ,jerusalem1   
and  ,paul an epistle before the reign  
of ,nero1 and they both bear testimony  
to the fact that ,jesus was the ,messiah
 of ,jewish prophecy1 who  descended    
into our world to be its ,saviour and   
,redeemer by the  sacrifice of ,his life
 on the cross--,his miraculous          
resurrection from  the dead being the   
attestation of ,his atoning work1 while 
,his promise  to come again to earth in 
like manner as ,he was seen to go away1 
they  both relied upon with implicit    

confidence4    ,as early as the year #eb
 ,paul writes from ,corinth to the      
,thessalonians1  reminding them how they
 turned from idols to serve the living  
and  true ,god1 and to wait for his ,son
 from heaven1 whom ,he raised from the  
dead1 even ,jesus1 who delivered us from
 the wrath to come2#fg and he  charges  
them by the ,lord that this epistle be  
read in all the ,churches  in           
,macedonia4#fh ,its genuineness has     
never been questioned4      #fg #a      
,thess4 i4 #i4      #fh ,ibid4 i4 #bg4  
,thus it is quite certain that ,paul1 at
 the commencement and throughout  his   
ministry1 preached the dogmatic         
doctrines of the ,divinity of  ,christ1 
the resurrection1 the atonement1 the    
depravity of human  nature1             
justification by faith1 and the work of 
the ,holy ,spirit in  renewing and      
sanctifying the souls of men1 which     
constituted the  ,christianity of the   
first three centuries1 and undoubtedly  
emanated--not from the depths of ,paul's

 moral consciousness1 but from  the     
events1 ,divine utterances1 and         
superhuman circumstances which were  the
 theme of the earliest ,christian       
records4#fi ,the ,apocalypse is         
absolute proof as to how they           
originated1 and that they were prevalent
  when it was written4      #fi ,paul   
tells the ,thessalonians he is thankful 
that they received    what he preached  
as the word of ,god1 not as the word of 
men4    ,this1 ,i contend1 is sound     
argument1 and neutralises that of our   
author4 ,other objections of cavillers  
have their appropriate answers4  ,they  
may say that the eye-witnesses might    
honestly believe and teach1  but were   
deceived4 ,no one would1 ,i think1 say  
they were dishonest1 and  invented the  
miracles4 ,it may be said that a single 
eye-witness such  as ,john is           
insufficient4 ,but if a jury has one    
such1 and all the  circumstantial       
evidence in the case supports his       
testimony1 the  verdict is easily       

arrived at4 ,a tree that is grafted     
usually yields  fruit after the process1
 not before2 but we have here this tree 
of  ,christianity proved to be fully    
developed in the year #fh1 and its      
fruit described1 and we are asked to    
believe that it was grafted to  bear its
 evangelical dogmas a century           
afterwards6 ,the fact is that the  same 
apostle1 who describes its fruit in the 
year #fh1 was present  when it was      
planted1 and we know from his evidence  
that the tree  needed no grafting to    
produce such fruit4    ,this evidence1  
from a hostile critic of such ability   
and scholarship1  to the authenticity   
and authorship of the book of           
,revelation1 is  surely of considerable 
value4 ,as ,professor ,owen could1 from 
a single  bone of a fossil animal1 show 
what the whole was of which the bone    
formed a part1 so might be used this    
evidence that ,john wrote the           
,apocalypse4    ,the ,christian         
apologist may show our author his own   

argument1 and  pointing out the word    
,apocalypse1 exclaim1 ,i thank thee1    
,jew1 for  teaching me that word6 ,thou 
art hoist with thine own petard6        
,,chapter ,,vii4    ,,conclusion4       
,the final and surest proof of the      
actuality and ,divine origin of         
revelation is its manifestation in      
individuals1 as a healing1              
sin-constraining power1 diffusing       
everywhere light and life4              
,christlieb4      ,the most important   
controversies are those which a man     
finds in his  own heart4      ,j4 ,a4   
,bengel4      ,the ,key to ,scripture is
 the ,person and ,office of ,messiah4   
,,chapter ,,vii4    ,,conclusion4       
,at the close of his work our author    
attempts to console his readers  for    
having demolished their evangelical     
belief in the following  eloquent       
language3--    ,in surrendering its     
miraculous element and its claims to    
supernatural  origin1 therefore1 the    
religion of ,jesus does not lose its    

virtue1  or the qualities which have    
made it a blessing to humanity4 ,it     
sacrifices none of that elevated        
character which has distinguished and   
raised it above all human systems2 it   
merely relinquishes a claim  which it   
has shared with all antecedent          
religions1 and severs its  connection   
with ignorant superstition4 ,it is too  
divine in its  morality to require the  
aid of miraculous attributes4 ,no       
supernatural  halo can heighten its     
spiritual beauty1 and no mysticism      
deepen its  holiness4 ,in its perfect   
simplicity it is sublime1 and in its    
profound wisdom it is eternal 7p4 #dhi74
    ,this may be eloquently expressed1  
but it will not bear analysis4 ,if  the 
religion of ,jesus has an elevated      
character1 which has  distinguished and 
raised it above all human systems1 it   
must have  a superhuman elevated        
character1 and1 if so1 a supernatural   
character1 and1 therefore1 the religion 
of ,jesus is a supernatural  religion4  

,to take from the ,bible all that is    
miraculous1 and pretend  it would not   
lose its virtue1 or the qualities which 
have made  it a blessing to humanity1 is
 simply absurd4 ,the teachings of       
,christ1 apart from ,his recognition of 
,abraham's faith in ,god having  spoken 
to him2 of ,moses1 as divinely          
commissioned to give the law of  ,sinai2
 and of ,david1 to prophesy of ,himself 
as the ,messiah1 is  inconceivable4 ,it 
is not possible to strike out of the    
,bible all that  is supernatural and    
leave it intelligible4 ,what would be   
left1 far  from being perfect simplicity
 and profound and eternal wisdom1 would 
be1 for religious instruction1 indeed1 a
 blank4    ,knowing what human nature is
 and has been in all ages1 where1 we may
  ask1 could such perfect and sublime   
morality have come from apart  from     
,divine interference8 ,as ,henry ,rogers
 says in his recent work1  ,the         
,superhuman ,origin of the ,bible       
inferred from itself1 ,the ,bible  is   

not such a book as man would have made  
if he could1 or could have  made if he  
would4    ,even ,john ,stuart ,mill1 in 
his book just published1 describes      
,christ as  the pattern of perfection   
for humanity2 and a unique figure1 not  
more unlike all ,his precursors than all
 ,his followers1 even those who  had the
 direct benefit of ,his personal        
teaching4    ,the late ,dr4 ,priestley1 
the eminent ,unitarian1 said that the   
actual  resurrection of ,jesus ,christ  
is more authentically attested than any 
other fact in history4#gj      #gj ,see 
his work1 ,matter and ,spirit1 p4 #bdg4 
,the fact is1 in short1 just this3 the  
whole ,scripture testimony to the  work 
of man's redemption is1 to the believer1
 explicit and harmonious1  while the    
emasculated and perverted creed of the  
moralist who rejects  the miraculous is 
sheer confusion and absurdity4    ,we   
appreciate the admonition of the apostle
 ,paul1 where he says3 ,oh1  ,timothy1  
keep that which is committed to thy     

trust1 avoiding profane  and vain       
babblings1 and oppositions of science1  
so called1 which1  some professing1 have
 erred concerning the faith4    ,it is  
of importance to note that the writings 
which record the deaths  of some of the 
principal persons1 such as ,john the    
,baptist1 ,james the  ,apostle1 and     
,stephen1 would1 probably1 have         
mentioned the decease of  others if they
 had died before the books were         
composed4 ,supposing they  originated at
 a later date1 the writers would have   
had no motive for  omitting any such    
particulars4 ,surely1 the ,acts of the  
,apostles would  have told us of the    
death of ,paul and ,peter1 ,matthew and 
,barnabas1 and  the other men whose     
doings it records4 ,if we imagine the   
book a  fiction1 then1 we ask1 where are
 the stories which apocryphal books     
contain1 such as the crucifixion of     
,peter1 which would1 certainly1  have   
been included8 ,this must be accounted  
for before we set aside the  book as not

 history1 but fiction4    ,this         
anonymous sceptical work has to         
encounter the damaging objection  that  
it enters a verdict before the case is  
complete4 ,the judge1 that  is1         
impartial criticism holding the balance 
evenly1 may justly say1  ,how can the   
verdict be pronounced in the absence of 
witnesses of such  importance as the    
,acts of the ,apostles and the epistles 
of ,paul8 ,the  final reflections at the
 conclusion of the second volume are    
premature4 ,instead of it being right   
not to delay a clear statement  of what 
the author believes to be the truth and 
its consequences1 it  is the opposite2  
and we venture to predict that1 when he 
has done his  worst1 when he has made   
the most of the silence of primitive    
writers  whose works time has reduced to
 fragments2 when he has fully exposed   
the irrelevancy of many of the          
assertions of over-sanguine apologists  
7such as ,tischendorf and ,canon        
,westcott72 when he has magnified to the

  utmost the difficulties inseparable   
from the investigation of matters       
eighteen centuries distant1 between     
which period in history and the  present
 time there have intervened revolutions 
in nations1 invasions  of barbarians1   
cities burned1 libraries destroyed1 and 
all that is  conceivable of             
obliteration1 falsification1 fraud1 and 
superstition1  in what are called the   
dark ages--his ability1 learning1       
research1 and  logic will not have      
convinced the majority of his readers   
that  ,christianity is to be placed in  
the category of the world's religious   
delusions and impostures4 ,his complete 
work will be fully replied to  by       
critics of his own calibre and acumen1  
and the highest honour it  will         
ultimately attain will be to be         
relegated to the unenviable  position in
 literature in which are placed         
,spinoza1 ,hume1 ,baur1  ,strauss1      
,rnan1 ,mill1 and all those able        
doubters who have boldly but            

unsuccessfully assailed the truth as it 
is in ,jesus4    ,i close with the      
remark that the ,bible is regarded by   
the ,evangelical  ,protestant           
,nonconformists from an independent     
point of view4 ,the  authority of the   
councils of the ,popish ,church is      
nothing to them4 ,the  decision of the  
,council of ,laodicea1 ,a4,d4 #cfd1     
furnishes evidence of  the ,holy        
,scriptures being1 in the main1 what we 
esteem them to be2 but  we do not       
recognise its authority4    ,we are in a
 position to welcome any light which any
 critic can throw  upon the records of  
,divine revelation1 and can be grateful 
for any  laborious research which       
separates the gold from the dross1 and  
selects the real coin from the          
counterfeit4 ,but it is undoubtedly true
  that1 as the religion of the ,bible is
 a spiritual matter1 it is best         
discerned by those whose hearts are open
 to receive it4    ,if any man will do  
his will1 he shall know of the doctrine 

whether it  be of ,god4#ga ,he that     
believeth on the ,son of ,god hath the  
witness  in himself4#gb ,filled with the
 knowledge of his will in all wisdom    
and spiritual understanding4#gc      #ga
 ,john vii4 #ag4      #gb #a ,john v4   
#aj4      #gc ,col4 i4 #i4    ,on the   
assumption that man is not a spiritual  
being1 the investigation  of what the   
,bible teaches is not likely to be      
successful4 ,the most  prominent        
statements will be foolishness4 ,the    
primary fact that ,god is  a ,spirit    
will not be apprehended1 and all        
analogous doctrines deemed  the         
outgrowth of superstition4 ,it is the   
vainest of all inquiries from  such a   
foregone conclusion4 ,man is not placed 
at such a point of  observation in the  
universe as to be competent to conduct a
  theological investigation1 based on a 
negative hypothesis1 regarding  the     
essential proposition of all religious  
truth4 ,among the  indispensable        
requisites in the pursuit of such       

knowledge1 are1 the  receptive          
disposition1 the listening attitude1 the
 becoming humility1  the consciousness  
of a tendency to go wrong1 and of       
dependence on the  ,divine illumination 
of the ,holy ,spirit4 ,blind unbelief is
 sure to  err4 ,the inquirer who does   
not lay aside pride and self-sufficiency
  is not in a condition to take the     
first step4 ,if intellectual power1     
acuteness of perception1 and the logical
 faculty1 could ensure the  successful  
pursuit of spiritual truth1 we may      
suppose that ,satan's  knowledge would  
convince him of the folly of his        
opposition to the  ,divine authority4   
,that which intervenes betwixt the      
,almighty ,creator  and the fallen angel
 intercepts the vision of the depraved  
human soul4  ,only the pure in heart can
 see ,god4 ,the blindness is not        
removable  until1 as in the case of     
,saul of ,tarsus1 those conditions are  
complied  with which are implied in the 
statement1 ,behold he prayeth4 ,his soul

  is humbled1 his eyes are opened1 and  
he gets nearer to the truth4 ,the  ,lord
 is nigh unto them who call upon him4#gd
      #gd ,psa4 cxlv4 #ah4    ,the      
summary of what ,i have endeavoured to  
make plain to you respecting  the book  
is briefly this3--    #a4 ,that it      
chiefly consists of ,german scepticism  
made plain to ,english  readers2 of a   
recast of the exploded fallacies of     
,hume2 and an  unsuccessful attempt to  
eliminate the miraculous from the       
,gospels4    #b4 ,that the assumption   
that there are in the ,bible ,satanic   
miracles1  thus putting ,jewish         
superstition on a level with revealed   
truth1 is  reasoning on false premises4 
#c4 ,that the miracles of the ,bible do 
not admit of their being  accommodated  
to the laws of nature1 to satisfy the   
scientific and  philosophical           
theologians4    #d4 ,that the objection 
to the testimony of the first disciples1
 on the  ground of their not being      
learned1 scientific1 and critical1 has  

no  weight1 especially as applied to    
,paul1 whose education would enable  him
 to weigh the evidence of the           
eye-witnesses1 which he would compare   
with the revelation to himself2 and thus
 he was in a position to know  the exact
 truth4    #e4 ,that the abstract       
argument against miracles not having    
sufficient  force to merit ,mr4         
,arnold's endorsement1 its further      
discussion was  not necessary1 the first
 part of the book being sufficiently    
neutralised4    #f4 ,that the argument  
from the silence of early ,church       
writers is not  conclusive1 because we  
have only fragments of their writings1  
and that  there was not the same need to
 refer to written records while         
tradition was fresh4    #g4 ,that the   
objection to a quotation because it is  
not verbatim is  frivolous4    #h4 ,that
 the hypothesis that the original       
records of ,christ's life1  which are   
not our ,gospels1 and are lost1 did not 
contain any miracles1  is a ,german     

conjecture1 which is totally unsupported
 and absolutely  incredible4    #i4     
,that the assumption of uniform and     
verbal inspiration is not an  essential 
of orthodox views1 and that             
,christianity has been more  damaged by 
its friends than its enemies4    #aj4   
,that the author's mode of presenting   
his facts is not to be relied  upon1 any
 more than his conclusions4    #aa4     
,that offensive epithets and            
unwarrantable boldness of assertion do  
not strengthen his arguments2 nor is    
eloquent language always sense4    #ab4 
,that the question is not whether the   
,gospels establish the reality  of      
miracles1 so that ,christianity is false
 if they do not sufficiently  do so2 but
 is the general evidence1 resting on a  
great variety of  proofs1 sufficient to 
prove it true8    #ac4 ,that special    
pleading is found throughout the book4  
#ad4 ,that whatever information is      
wanting1 as to the exact manner in      
which the four ,gospels were            

compiled--whatever probability there may
  be that ,matthew's is made up of      
materials from several other sources1   
such as the lost ,gospel of the         
,hebrews1 as well as from that          
apostle's own record of what he heard   
and was eye-witness of--whatever        
probability there may be that the       
,fourth ,gospel is only the ,apostle    
,john's to the extent of his having     
furnished the materials1 which          
,grecian1 rather than ,jewish1 pens put 
into elegant language and  artistic     
form--it is undeniable that if ,john the
 son of ,zebedee1 the  apostle1 wrote   
the ,apocalypse1 as our author proves he
 did1 the fact  furnishes the strongest 
evidence1 clear1 direct1 and            
irrefragable1  that he knew1 being an   
eye-witness of the events of the ,gospel
  records1 the ,resurrection of ,christ 
to be no cunningly devised  fable1 but  
the fact of facts1 the truth of truths1 
the miracle of  miracles4    #ae4 ,that 
the religion of the ,bible being        

spiritual1 its truths are  best         
discerned by those whose hearts are open
 to receive them4    ,the vast expanse  
of evangelical ,christian evidence1     
shining around us  like the sky on a    
clear night1 has its nebul which only   
faith's  telescope can reach2 but there 
are stars and constellations which are  
so conspicuous that no inquirer after   
truth can fail to see them4 ,john  to   
the seven ,churches1 whose angels are   
seven stars1 is as obvious as  the      
,pleiades2 ,paul and ,barnabas1 as of   
old1 are ,mercurius and ,jupiter2       
,abraham's descendants1 still distinct  
from all other races1 in all  lands1 are
 prominent as ,sirius2 ,pliny's letter  
to ,trajan is radiant as  ,arcturus2 the
 martyr-story of the ,catacombs and of  
history is as  demonstrative as ,mars2  
while the institution to show forth the 
,lord's  death1 by the breaking of bread
 on the ,lord's day1 glows like ,venus4 
,these1 requiring no telescope1         
,confirm the tidings as they roll1      

,and spread the truth from pole to pole4
      ,,unwin ,,brothers1 ,,the         
,,gresham ,,press1 ,,chilworth ,,and    
,,london4